should "self" be changed?

[Ian Kelly]

On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 11:19 AM, Marko Rauhamaa <marko at pacujo.net> wrote:
> Steven D'Aprano <steve at pearwood.info>:
>
>> On Fri, 29 May 2015 12:00 pm, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>> in a language where classes are
>>> themselves values, there is no reason why a class must be instantiated,
>>> particularly if you're only using a single instance of the class. Anyone
>>> ever come across a named design pattern that involves using classes
>>> directly without instantiating them?
>>>
>>> I'm basically looking for a less inelegant term for "instanceless class"
>>> -- not so much a singleton as a zeroton.
>>
>> C# has these, and calls them static classes.
>
> I guess Python has them, too, and calls them modules.

Indeed. I find it amusing that C# has special syntax to work around
what is ostensibly a design feature -- that all code must be contained
in a class (or struct).

But then, the same practice also exists in Java, where there is no
specific syntax for it.