noob question: "TypeError" wrong number of args

[Bruno Desthuilliers]

Edward Elliott a écrit :
> bruno at modulix wrote:
> 
>>Technically, they are still function objects. They are later wrapped
>>into method descriptor objects (at lookup time IIRC, but ask a guru or
>>read the doc to know for sure). And don't forget the case of nested
>>functions...
> 
> 
> I don't see how nested functions change anything.  If they're nested in a
> method, they can access self, but the name mapping is done at runtime. 
> Unless you mean a nested fucntion which is dynamically added as a method,
> but that's the same case as the next one.
> 

Nope. I just wanted to point out that just checking for def statements 
in the scope of a class statement is not enough to decide if it has to 
be treated as a method.

(snip)
> 
>>>Well I'm assuming the rules for when to put 'self' in the parameter list
>>>are simple enough to be automated.
>>
>>They are still complex enough to require a real parser. And anyway,
>>since this is a syntax change, this should be handled by the parser IMHO.
>  
> I agree, but it's good to keep options in mind.

regexp are not an option !-)

> 
>>Honestly, I don't think it has much chance. I barely even notice typing
>>'self' or 'cls',   and I guess it's the same for most Python programmers
>>- those who can't stand it probably use another language... And FWIW, I
>>still prefer to keep consistency in functions definitions.
>  
> I have no doubt that's true for a lot of people.  Hell I probably prefer the
> current approach because 1) it's not a big deal in practice, and 2) I can
> use the shorter 'me' or 's' in place of self in my own code, which I
> couldn't do under the change

Now *this* would be a +1 !-)

> (well, I could add 'me = self' as the first
> statement of any method, but that's clumsy).  My objections stem more from
> an elegance standpoint.  Of course elegance is in the eye of the beholder.

Indeed...