On 5/10/2018 3:58 PM, stefano wrote:
I know that "self" parameter have been discussed a lot, but still I didn't
find this proposal. If it was instead take my sincere apologies and please
forget this mail.
The disturbing part of the "self parameter" is the asymmetry of the
definition and the call
> So I was thinking: why not do define the methods
> > like: "def self.whatevermethod(par1, par2, etc)" instead of "def
> > whatevermethod(self, par1, par2, etc)"?
>
because "self" in this case is a class instance, passed in at method call
time.
but "whatevermethod" is a class attribute.
note th
On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 07:58:12PM +, stefano wrote:
> The disturbing part of the "self parameter" is the asymmetry of the
> definition and the call.
Why is that disturbing? There is always some asymmetry between
*defining* a function and *calling* a function.
Function definitions:
def
I know that "self" parameter have been discussed a lot, but still I didn't
find this proposal. If it was instead take my sincere apologies and please
forget this mail.
The disturbing part of the "self parameter" is the asymmetry of the
definition and the call. So I was thinking: why not do define
