On Aug 3, 4:10 am, "Heiko Wundram" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Am 03.08.2008, 12:51 Uhr, schrieb Equand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > how about changing the precious self. to . > > imagine > > > self.update() > > > .update() > > > simple right? > > What about: > > class x: > > def x(self,ob): > ob.doSomethingWith(self) > > ? Not so simple anymore, isn't it? If you're not trolling, there's
This is not a problem at all. If the OP got what he wanted, "self" could still be available just as it is now to do what you suggested above. That would not need to change. > hundreds of reasons why the explicit self is as it is, and it's not going > to go away, just as a thread that produced immense amounts of response > demonstrated around a week ago. Read that, and rethink. > > --- Heiko. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
