On Tuesday, May 26, 2015 at 11:57:44 AM UTC-5, Laura Creighton wrote: > In a message of Tue, 26 May 2015 09:37:29 -0700, zipher writes: > >Would it be prudent to rid the long-standing "argument" (pun unintended) > >about self and the ulterior spellings of it, by changing it into a symbol > >rather than a name? > > > >Something like: > > > >class MyClass(object): > > > > def __init__(@): > > @.dummy = None > > > >OR, even better, getting *rid of it* in the parameter list, so it stops > >confusing people about how many parameters a method needs, and transform it > >into a true *operator*. > > > >class MyClass(object): > > > > def __init__(): #takes no arguments! > > @.dummy = None #the @ invokes the class object's dictionary > > > >That would seem to be a nice solution to the problem, really. It doesn't > >become PERLish because you've made it into a genuine operator -- "self" was > >always a non-variable that looked like a variable and hence created an itch > >that couldn't be scratched. > > > >Anyone else have any thoughts? > > Guido did. :) > http://neopythonic.blogspot.se/2008/10/why-explicit-self-has-to-stay.html
Nice link, thanks. I see the problem. I was under the false impression that Python's lexer built an *abstract syntax tree* (see wikipedia for a nice description) like C does so that lexical items like functions and objects are defined. As it stands now, Python doesn't even seem to know what an *expression* is. Guido hasn't defined his language so that an object is defined lexically, so he's cheating a little by requiring "self" to be passed in. If Python were to be defined more completely, all his points in reference to Bruce Eckel's suggestion would be moot. A method would automatically (not auto*magically*) know what class they are in. Mark -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
