Why self?

[Louis M. Pecora]

In article <yu99adp0ych2.fsf at europa.research.att.com>, Andrew Koenig
<ark at research.att.com> wrote:

> Louis>        def __init__(self):
> Louis>            name=None
> 
> But that's extra code.  I thought the whole point was to get rid of
> extra code, not move it around.

Getting rid of distracting code was my motive.  I always try to
initialize object variables.  That helps me when I look over an object
and I thought that was good practice.  Hence, it adds no code for me.

> 
> What about someone who wants to write several classes with methods
> that behave exactly the same way?  Doesn't it make sense to write that
> code once, and then install references to it in each of those classes?

I would answer: use inheritance.

> What about code that wants to build up objects with particular
> properties by installing methods dynamically in those objects
> according to the requested specifications?

Oh, I see adding functionality on the fly.  Interesting idea.  Is that
really undoable with my suggestion?  My mind is hitting a wall trying
to see that, sorry.

> Because requiring "self" has some advantages, as well as the disadvantages
> that you and others have mentioned, it's a matter of opinion as to whether
> a solution to the problem would create other problems.  For that reason,
> I'm not inclined to go looking for a detailed solution--especially as
> any solution would have to avoid breaking existing code.
                                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Yeah, that's true.  

Sigh.  Looks like I live with  self.   Now that sounds deeply Jungian
or something.

Thanks for the feedback.

-- 
Lou Pecora
  - My views are my own.