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

[avi.e.gross at gmail.com]

>>> I think you are over-thinking this, Avi :)

Is overthinking the pythonic way or did I develop such a habit from some
other language?

More seriously, I find in myself that I generally do not overthink. I
overtalk and sort of overwrite, so for now, I think I will drop out of this
possibly non-pythonic topic and go read another book or a few hundred so
when it comes up again ...

-----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 5:04 PM
To: python-list at python.org
Subject: Re: Which more Pythonic - self.__class__ or type(self)?

On 3/4/2023 4:18 PM, avi.e.gross at gmail.com wrote:
> 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!

I think you are over-thinking this, Avi :)

> 
> -----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