On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 2:46 PM, Matthew Fitzgibbons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> Robert Dailey wrote: > >> On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 1:03 PM, Brett g Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]<mailto: >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote: >> >> Robert Dailey wrote: >> >> This is an example of a response I'm looking for: >> "The self parameter is required because the parser is a bit old >> and needs to know the exact object you're referencing" >> >> This is _not_ an example of what I'm looking for: >> "Specifying self is a great mysterious thing that we should >> never question. Do not question the language! The language is >> mighty! Don't bring C++ to Python!" >> >> >> Fredrik Lundh has written a very clear explanation of this at >> >> http://effbot.org/pyfaq/why-must-self-be-used-explicitly-in-method-definitions-and-calls.htm >> >> (or http://bit.ly/3EUiCf if you don't feel like stitching that URL >> back together...) >> >> >> This sounds like an article of opinion. He's not really given any reasons >> other than "Well, it makes this easier or look better". True that >> declarations are the determining factor in C/C++, however I was thinking of >> more or less an implied 'self'. For example: >> >> # Consider this normal syntax: >> class MyFoo: >> def DoFoo( self ): >> self._member = 6 >> >> # Elimintating 'self' in the parameter list should still work as far as >> the >> # interpreter is concerned, since 'self' in this case now acts like 'this' >> # in C++. The below code should be equivalent. >> class MyFoo: >> def DoFoo(): >> self._member = 6 >> >> Given the code samples above, is there any technical reason why this >> cannot be done? Thanks for the input guys, and thanks more over for keeping >> this easy-going. >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> -- >> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list >> > > Your first example could be written: > > class MyFoo(object): > def do_foo(the_foo_instance): > the_foo_instance._member = 6 > > 'self' is not special the way 'this' is in C++. It's just a name for an > object reference just like any other name for any other object reference. > > -Matt > Yes, I realize that it can have any name. But this does not change its purpose. It was simply an example. In the second code snippet I gave you, 'self' would become a reserved word and a user would have to use that to reference the object from which the function was called.
-- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
