Then what of the notion that you are not too simple-minded to adapt to a simple notational convention? Or your conjecture that Python programmers are too accustomed to 'self.' to see it for the clutter it is. Could I not, by the same reasoning, say that you are too accustomed to $ to see its arbitrary and highly overloaded meaning? Could you not become accustomed to 'self.' if you give it a chance? I think you could. --Andy (sorry Russ for the double-email, I forgot to reply-all) On Sun, Aug 24, 2008 at 11:29 PM, Russ Paielli <russ.paielli@gmail.com>wrote:
On Sun, Aug 24, 2008 at 11:10 PM, Andrew Akira Toulouse <andrew@atoulou.se
wrote:
I agree with Brett.
While it's true that $ is four character shorter than 'self.', it also loses expressiveness by doing so. The point here seems to be that it distinguishes local variables with instance variables. Whereas 'self.' conveys the idea that this is an instance variable clearly, a symbol such as '$' or '@' does not.
Yes it does. Or, rather, it could if allowed to do so.
The notion that Python programmers are too simple minded to adapt to a simple notational convention seems a bit bizarre to me. Of course it does not seem "natural" to you yet, because it is a new idea and you have not had a chance to grow accustomed to it. But I think that anyone with half or more of a brain could become completely comfortable with the idea within an hour or two if they would just give a chance.
--Russ
_______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list Python-ideas@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas