[Python-ideas] Sorry for yet another self discussion

[Terry Reedy]

On 5/10/2018 3:58 PM, stefano wrote:
> I know that "self" parameter have been discussed a lot, but still I didn't
> find this proposal. If it was instead take my sincere apologies and please
> forget this mail.
> 
> The disturbing part of the "self parameter" is the asymmetry of the
> definition and the call.

You are free to use the full signature of the method by calling the 
method on the class, where it is defined.  Self *is* a parameter of the 
function and therefore *is* part of its signature.

 >>> l = []
 >>> l.append(1)
 >>> list.append(l, 2)
 >>> l
[1, 2]

Note that you can make a function defined outside of any class a method 
of some class by making it an attribute of the class.

An intelligent editor like IDLE changes the call signature tip according 
to the call form.  "l.append(" brings up "(object, /)" while 
"list.append(" brings up "(self, object, /)", along with a note 
explaining that '/' marks the preceding arguments as positional-only.

> So I was thinking: why not do define the methods
> like: "def self.whatevermethod(par1, par2, etc)" instead of "def
> whatevermethod(self, par1, par2, etc)"?

This or something like it has been proposed and rejected before.

> This will allow the call and the definition to be written exactly in the
> same way, still leaving the "clarity" of the additional input for the
> function.

When you call 'self.method', you are not calling type(self).method.  You 
are instead calling the bound method 'self.method', which has the 
abbreviated signature.  This proposal would create an asymmetry between 
the function definition and the call of the function.

-- 
Terry Jan Reedy