Guido's new method definition idea

[Carl Banks]

On Dec 6, 4:39 pm, "Russ P." <Russ.Paie... at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 6, 1:21 pm, Carl Banks <pavlovevide... at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 6, 9:12 am, "Russ P." <Russ.Paie... at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 6, 1:02 am, Antoine De Groote <anto... at vo.lu> wrote:
>
> > > > Allowing "$" as a substitute for "self" wouldn't require this new syntax.
>
> > > > class C:
> > > >     def method($, arg):
> > > >         $.value = arg
>
> > > > I'm strongly against this. This looks ugly and reminds me of Perl and
> > > > Ruby. (I don't have anything against these languages, but there's a
> > > > reason I use Python).
>
> > > > Russ P. wrote:
> > > > > On Dec 5, 6:21 pm, "Daniel Fetchinson" <fetchin... at googlemail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >> Hi folks,
>
> > > > >> The story of the explicit self in method definitions has been
> > > > >> discussed to death and we all know it will stay. However, Guido
> > > > >> himself acknowledged that an alternative syntax makes perfect sense
> > > > >> and having both (old and new) in a future version of python is a
> > > > >> possibility since it maintains backward compatibility. The alternative
> > > > >> syntax will be syntactic sugar for the old one. This blog post of his
> > > > >> is what I'm talking about:
>
> > > > >>http://neopythonic.blogspot.com/2008/10/why-explicit-self-has-to-stay...
>
> > > > >> The proposal is to allow this:
>
> > > > >> class C:
> > > > >>     def self.method( arg ):
> > > > >>         self.value = arg
> > > > >>         return self.value
>
> > > > >> instead of this:
>
> > > > >> class C:
> > > > >>     def method( self, arg ):
> > > > >>         self.value = arg
> > > > >>         return self.value
>
> > > > >> I.e. explicit self stays only the syntax is slightly different and may
> > > > >> seem attractive to some. As pointed out by Guido classmethods would
> > > > >> work similarly:
>
> > > > >> class C:
> > > > >>     @classmethod
> > > > >>     def cls.method( arg ):
> > > > >>         cls.val = arg
> > > > >>         return cls.val
>
> > > > >> The fact that Guido says,
>
> > > > >> "Now, I'm not saying that I like this better than the status quo. But
> > > > >> I like it a lot better than [...] but it has the great advantage that
> > > > >> it is backward compatible, and can be evolved into a PEP with a
> > > > >> reference implementation without too much effort."
>
> > > > >> shows that the proposal is viable.
>
> > > > >> I'd like this new way of defining methods, what do you guys think?
> > > > >> Anyone ready for writing a PEP?
>
> > > > >> Cheers,
> > > > >> Daniel
>
> > > > >> --
> > > > >> Psss, psss, put it down! -http://www.cafepress.com/putitdown
>
> > > > > I like it.
>
> > > > > I'll even go a step further and suggest that "$" be allowed as a
> > > > > substitute for "self". It looks like a capital "S" (for Self), and it
> > > > > stands out clearly. It also makes code more succinct with no loss of
> > > > > readability. Think of the line wraps that could be avoided.
>
> > > It looks "ugly" simply because it is new to you. Once you get used to
> > > it, I'll bet it will look fine. And resemblance to another language is
> > > not a very good reason to reject it.
>
> > Perl is not new to me and I am familiar with the syntax, such as it
> > is.  I find it unspeakably ugly.  So, no, you would lose your bet if
> > it were me.
>
> > Carl Banks
>
> I don't know much about Perl, but my understanding is that a dollar
> sign must be used every time a variable is dereferenced, as in bash or
> other shell languages. What we are proposing here is something
> entirely different: the dollar sign would simply be a shorthand for
> "self". In Perl, the dollar sign is clutter, but in this case it
> actually reduces clutter.

But it's ugly.  No amount of rationalization will make it not ugly.


> Python already uses shorthand extensively. How about "def"? For people
> who are so worried about self-explanatory symbols, what the heck does
> that stand for? Default? Defeat? Defect? Defunct? Defer?
>
> At some time in the past, a conscious decision was made to save three
> characters in the word "define" by abbreviating it as "def". The
> suggestion to abbreviate "self" as "$" also saves three characters.
> And "self" appears much more often than "def", so an abbreviation is
> equally or more justified in my opinion.

def isn't ugly.


Carl Banks