Guido's new method definition idea
Bruno Desthuilliers
bdesth.quelquechose at free.quelquepart.fr
Sat Dec 6 09:54:44 EST 2008
Daniel Fetchinson a écrit :
> 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.html
>
> 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
>
(snip)
> I'd like this new way of defining methods, what do you guys think?
-1
As far as I'm concerned, it doesn't add anything to the language, nor
doesn't save any typing, so I just don't see the point. And having it
co-existing with the normal syntax will only add more confusion.
NB : FWIW, I would eventually have voted -0 if it had been proposed for
Python 3, and as a _replacement_ (not _alternative_) to the current
syntax. But Python 3 is now released, so...
More information about the Python-list
mailing list