On Wednesday 27 May 2015 02:37, zipher wrote:
> 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?
No.
> 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*.
I think you misspelled a word. There's no "be", "tt" or "er" in "worse" :-)
All joking aside, I cannot imagine why you think that the first argument to
a method should be considered an operator. It's an argument, a named
variable, not an operator.
> class MyClass(object):
>
> def __init__(): #takes no arguments!
But that is completely wrong. __init__ DOES take a single argument -- the
instance. Methods, it can be either bound to the instance or unbound:
py> str.upper("hello world") # unbound method, self provided explicitly
'HELLO WORLD'
py> "hello world".upper() # bound method, self provided automatically
'HELLO WORLD'
I suggest you study these two examples carefully.
> @.dummy = None #the @ invokes the class object's dictionary
It certainly shouldn't do that. It should invoke the full attribute lookup
machinery, which does far more than invoke the class __dict__. In fact, if
it invoked the class __dict__, that would *completely* break the object
oriented paradigm. Writing to the class __dict__ means that all instances
share the same value.
> 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.
That is completely wrong. self is, and always has been, a real variable.
That's why you can call it anything you like -- self is just the convention,
nothing more.
--
Steven
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
