Attack a sacred Python Cow

[Russ P.]

On Jul 28, 2:52 am, alex23 <wuwe... at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 28, 3:07 pm, "Russ P." <Russ.Paie... at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > What was "suggested in rejected" on the thread you pointed me to was
> > not what I suggested. Not even close. Get it, genius?
>
> *sigh* Clearly I don't have better things to do right now than waste
> my time.
>
> You wrote:
> > So why not allow something like this?:
> > class MyClass:
> >     def func( , xxx, yyy):
> >        .xxx = xxx
> >        local = .yyy
> > The "self" argument is replaced with nothing, but a comma is used as a
> > placeholder.
>
> Philip Eby suggested in the thread I linked to:
>
> > def .aMethod(arg1, arg2):
> >     return .otherMethod(arg1*2+arg2)
> > In other words, 'self' here is uniformly replaced by an empty string.
>
> So you honestly see no similarity between your suggestion and the
> latter?
>
> Or do you seriously think that placing an errant comma in the argument
> list is somehow substantively different from placing a period before
> the function name?

Yes, in terms of Python syntax, it's completely different.

Forget the empty first argument. As I explained in other posts on this
thread, it is not even needed for my proposal. It was just a
distraction from the main idea.