On Mon, 24 Nov 2014 16:11:32 +1100, Chris Angelico wrote: > 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.
And then, at least in C++, you see coding standards that demand that member variables (aka instance variables aka attributes) be named in such a way that you can tell that they're member variables and not local variables (one common convenstion is that all member variables begin with "m_"). IMO, that's a concession that all that implicitness and convenience just causes confusion. In Python, the names of all instance attributes begin with "self." Dan -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
