Another try at Python's selfishness

[n.estner at gmx.de]

> ...
> Unfortunately, none of this suggests that it's reasonable to have
>
> def x.y(z): ...
>
> mean the same as
>
> def y(x, z): ...

Actually, it shouldn't. The idea was, that
    def x.y(z): ...
(explicitly) introduces an unbound method. That's not introducing a new
conect to python, it's just making the difference between an unbound
method and a not-bindable function explicit.

Currently, "def(x,y): ..." can mean two different things: In the
context of a class, it introduces an unbound method, in global or local
contexts it introduces a function. I don't want to have a new syntax
for that, I want two different syntaxes for these two different
meanings.

> and I have no idea of how it would generalize to def x.y.z(t): ...

Nor do I. Is that a problem?