On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 3:21 PM, Steven D'Aprano <st...@pearwood.info> wrote: > On Sun, 23 Nov 2014 09:02:57 -0800, Rustom Mody wrote: > >> Python is a bit odd in the OO-world in that it prioritizes "Explicit is >> better than implicit" over convenience. >> >> Notice that you use self.throw where in most other OOP languages you >> would use just throw. > > I don't think that is correct. I think that most OOP languages are like > Python, and use a special variable to reference the current instance: > > In some of these languages, the use of "this/self/me" is optional, but > I'm not aware of *any* OOP language where there is no named reference to > the current object at all.
I believe his point is that Python, unlike every other language he can think of, requires "self.x" instead of just "x". Every language needs a way to say "current object", but not every language needs you to say that for every member reference. C++, Pike, and Java let you short-hand that. (They're all deriving from the same syntactic style anyway.) JavaScript doesn't, I believe, although its variable scoping rules are some of the most insane I've ever met, so there might be a way to shortcut it. If your experience of OO is mainly from C++/Java family languages, then yes, Python will seem odd. ChrisA -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
