Py3K idea: why not drop the colon?

[Stephen Eilert]

Carl Banks escreveu:

> Steve Holden wrote:
> > In fact most Python doesn't use such constructs, though I'll admit the
> > occasional __init__ is more or less inevitable once you start using the
> > object-oriented features more than casually.
>
> Occasional?  I don't know about you, but I use __init__ in 99% of the
> classes I define.  :)  I don't think __special_symbols__ are manifestly
> unsuitable for newbies--they're just special.
>
> I was curious how much I used these symbols.  For my current largish
> project:
>
>     306 __init__
>      68 __future__
>      44 __dict__
>       3 __name__
>       3 __main__
>       3 __import__
>       3 __builtin__
>       2 __str__
>       2 __file__
>       1 __setitem__
>       1 __setattr__
>       1 __repr__
>       1 __or__
>       1 __ne__
>       1 __int__
>       1 __getitem__
>       1 __getattribute__
>       1 __eq__
>       1 __call__
>       1 __add__
>
> Excepting my use of __dict__, not a whole lot advanced usage there, and
> I am NOT the kind of person who's afraid to do advanced things when
> it's useful.  Much of the advanced stuff, including __dict__, is for
> debugging.  (I have a lot of classes that acquire resources that I must
> explicity release, so I clear the __dict__ to catch any post-release
> accesses, which could cause subtle failures otherwise.)
>
>
> Carl Banks

Well, I *hate* underscores with a passion. So it is kinda frustrating
that I *have* to say "__init__". The fact that the coding conventions
for Python suggest things such as methods_called_this_or_that do not
help. Everything else seems fine, since if there's voodoo involved, it
had best be sticking out from the text in big, bloody, blinking, red
letters.

I know, there's noone preventing me from doing otherwise (except for
that blasted __init__). I'd like to follow the pack here, tho.


Stephen