Attack a sacred Python Cow

[Russ P.]

On Jul 27, 8:38 pm, alex23 <wuwe... at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 28, 4:59 am, "Russ P." <Russ.Paie... at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 27, 3:11 am, alex23 <wuwe... at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 27, 4:26 pm, "Russ P." <Russ.Paie... at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jul 26, 11:18 pm, Terry Reedy <tjre... at udel.edu> wrote:
> > > > > The use of <nothing>'.' has been suggested before and rejected.
>
> > > > Where and why?
>
> > > Google is your friend:http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-3000/2006-April/000793.html
>
> > What Guido rejected there is most certainly *not*
> > what I suggested. I agree with Guido on that one.
>
> Orly?
>
> Ian Bicking wrote: "I propose that the self argument be removed from
>
> method definitions."
>
> Philip Eby suggested:
>
> >      def .aMethod(arg1, arg2):
> >          return .otherMethod(arg1*2+arg2)
>
> Guido shot them all down by stating:
>
> > [Y]ou're proposing to hide a
> > fundamental truth in Python, that methods are "just" functions whose
> > first argument can be supplied using syntactic sugar
>
> Any more reading comprehension we can do for you?

Dude, I agree with Guido completely on this one. You
seem to be clueless about the issue here. You're the
one with the reading comprehension problem. Please
quit wasting my time with your irrelevant crap.