Which more Pythonic - self.__class__ or type(self)?

[avi.e.gross at gmail.com]

I don't know, Thomas. For some simple programs, there is some evolutionary
benefit by starting with what you know and gradually growing from there. He
first time you need to do something that seems to need a loop in python,
there are loops to choose from. 

But as noted in a recent discussion, things are NOT NECESSARILY the same
even with something that simple. Did your previous languages retain
something like the loop variable outside the loop? What are your new scoping
rules? Do you really want to keep using global variables, and so on.

And, another biggie is people who just don't seem aware of what comes easily
in the new language. I have seen people from primitive environments set up
programs with multiple arrays they process the hard way instead of using
some forms of structure like a named tuple or class arranged in lists or use
a multidimensional numpy/pandas kind of data structure.

So ignoring the word pythonic as too specific, is there a way to say that
something is the way your current language supports more naturally? 

Yes, there are sort of fingerprints in how people write. Take the python
concept of truthy and how some people will still typically add a test for
equality with True. That may not be pythonic to some but is there much harm
in being explicit so anyone reading the code better understands what it doe?

I have to wonder what others make of my code as my style is likely to be
considered closer to "eclectic" as I came to python late and found an
expanding language with way too many ways to do anything and can choose. But
I claim that too is pythonic!

-----Original Message-----
From: Python-list <python-list-bounces+avi.e.gross=gmail.com at python.org> On
Behalf Of Thomas Passin
Sent: Saturday, March 4, 2023 1:09 PM
To: python-list at python.org
Subject: Re: Which more Pythonic - self.__class__ or type(self)?

On 3/4/2023 2:47 AM, Peter J. Holzer wrote:
> Even before Python existed there was the adage "a real programmer
> can write FORTRAN in any language", indicating that idiomatic usage of a
> language is not governed by syntax and library alone, but there is a
> cultural element: People writing code in a specific language also read
> code by other people in that language, so they start imitating each
> other, just like speakers of natural languages imitate each other.
> Someone coming from another language will often write code which is
> correct but un-idiomatic, and you can often guess which language they
> come from (they are "writing FORTRAN in Python").

What Peter didn't say is that this statement is usually used in a 
disparaging sense.  It tends to imply that a person can write (or is 
writing) awkward or inappropriate code anywhere.

-- 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list