On Jul 28, 3:07 pm, "Russ P." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > What was "suggested in rejected" on the thread you pointed me to was > not what I suggested. Not even close. Get it, genius?
*sigh* Clearly I don't have better things to do right now than waste my time. You wrote: > So why not allow something like this?: > class MyClass: > def func( , xxx, yyy): > .xxx = xxx > local = .yyy > The "self" argument is replaced with nothing, but a comma is used as a > placeholder. Philip Eby suggested in the thread I linked to: > def .aMethod(arg1, arg2): > return .otherMethod(arg1*2+arg2) > In other words, 'self' here is uniformly replaced by an empty string. So you honestly see no similarity between your suggestion and the latter? Or do you seriously think that placing an errant comma in the argument list is somehow substantively different from placing a period before the function name? Or are you trying to say that '"self" argument is replaced with nothing' is in no way the same suggestion as "'self' here is uniformly replaced by an empty string"? And do you -really- believe that Guido's rejection reasons of * "you're proposing to hide a fundamental truth in Python, that methods are "just" functions whose first argument can be supplied using syntactic sugar" * "that's a lot of new syntax for no gain in readability. You just need to get your head around the fundamental truth" ...somehow don't apply to your suggestion? Did you even read the thread? -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
