On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 06:23:04AM +, Simon King wrote:
> X
>
> In some context, the technical term ``self`` might be easier to
> understand (for someone who knows python...) than natural language,
> in other context it may be the other way around
>
> Maybe +1 as a rule of thumb, but -1 as
X
In some context, the technical term ``self`` might be easier to
understand (for someone who knows python...) than natural language,
in other context it may be the other way around
Maybe +1 as a rule of thumb, but -1 as a strict rule.
On 2017-05-17, Kwankyu Lee wrote:
>
Kwankyu Lee wrote:
> G2. Write
>
> if the lattice is reflexive ...
>
> but don't write
>
> if ``self`` is reflexive ...
X
--
Marc
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from
On Wed, 17 May 2017, Andrey Novoseltsev wrote:
X
I think ``self`` should be allowed in a longer description and allowing it
there but not in a one-liner is a bit
confusing. So I'd rather not say anything about it and let people use their
preferences.
I am strongly against X. If we have no
X
I think ``self`` should be allowed in a longer description and allowing it
there but not in a one-liner is a bit confusing. So I'd rather not say
anything about it and let people use their preferences.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
+1, although I agree with Travis that ``self`` is technically precise and
unambiguous (but for users not familiar with Python, who would read the
inline documentation obtained via the question mark, ``self`` can be
disturbing)
What is the policy of other Python projects regarding this?
--