Python misconceptions in IBM Ruby article...

Michael Hudson mwh21 at cam.ac.uk
Fri Feb 18 17:42:06 CET 2000


Robin Becker <robin at jessikat.demon.co.uk> writes:

> I guess the objection is to not having a standard name for the instance
> in class functions. If we had the standard set at self you could
> presumably write
> 
> class dingo:
>     def normal_func(a1,a2,....):
>         .....
> 
>     classdef instance_func(a1,a2,...):
>         self.a=1
>         ........
> 
> ie you could distinguish in the class definition between the kinds of
> functions. Presumably normal_func cannot refer to self and instance_func
> can. Also I assume that normal_func would live while the class does
> which is more difficult in python.

One wonders in this case you (not you Robin, the general "you" -
probably should be "one", but that sounds odd in English...) intend to
create instance variables, or alternatively have locals that are not
instance variables.  I don't really see that there is any viable
alternative to the `self' approach in Python, for a variety of
reasons.  The status quo is simple, explicit, consistent and has as
about as much chance of changing as the whitespace issue so there
isn't a lot of point debating it, I'd have thought.

pointless-ly y'rs
Michael



More information about the Python-list mailing list