Confused with methods

[Antoon Pardon]

Op 2005-02-07, Alex Martelli schreef <aleaxit at yahoo.com>:
> Antoon Pardon <apardon at forel.vub.ac.be> wrote:
>
>> Op 2005-02-06, Alex Martelli schreef <aleaxit at yahoo.com>:
>> >  
>> >> Isn't that inconsistent?
>> >
>> > That Python has many callable types, not all of which are descriptors?
>> > I don't see any inconsistency there.  Sure, a more generalized currying
>> > (argument-prebinding) capability would be more powerful, but not more
>> > consistent (there's a PEP about that, I believe).
>> 
>> I think python is a bit inconsistent here, by using 'def' for
>> two different things.
>
> It doesn't.
>
>> I think it would have been more consistent
>> if def always produces a function
>
> It does.
>
> def g(self): pass
> class A(object):
>   f = g
>
> class B(object):
>   def f(self): pass
>
> class C(object): pass
> C.f = g
>
> class D(object):
>   f = B.f
>
> These four classes are essentially equivalent.  def always produces a
> function object and binds it to the name coming after keyword 'def'.
> Any such function object, no matter how produced and how bound hither
> and thither, always behaves in exactly the same way.
>
> You're free to like or dislike this arrangement, but calling it
> "inconsistent" is a madman's folly, as it is TOTALLY consistent.

Yes it is inconsistent with the rest of python. That you found
a subset in which it is consistent doesn't change that.

And what if you do:

  c = C()
  c.f = g


The fact that a function in a class performs a lot of magic if
it is called through an instance, that isn't performed otherwise,
makes python inconsistent here. You may like the arrangement
(and it isn't such a big deal IMO) but that doesn't make it consistent.

-- 
Antoon Pardon