An alternative approach to bound methods
jeremy at alum.mit.edu
Tue Feb 20 18:11:16 CET 2001
>>>>> "TC" == Tim Couper writes:
TC> What we lose is the ability to access class attributes by
TC> getting an attribute of an instance (in case they are not
TC> functions, because you could not do it when they are functions
TC> anyway). It's not a problem except compatibility. When scopes
TC> nest, you can just refer to these names unqualified. You can
TC> also refer to them qualified by the class name, which works as
TC> now from any place where the class is accessible.
TC> What do you think?
I'm not sure I really followed this argument. Perhaps some code
examples would help.
The ability to access class attributes via self is pretty fundamental
property of Python. I don't expect it will go away.
Also note that nested scopes do not allow access to class attributes
as unqualified names. When resolving free variables, class scopes are
skipped. This decision was made because we wanted to enforce the rule
that all access to class and instance data should be via self.
TC> FWIW I think that this seems an excellent suggestion; for one, I
TC> would find it a real asset to have such a seemingly python-esque
TC> way of having class functions/static methods available in this
TC> manner. What is the procedure to bring this suggestion the the
Write a PEP.
More information about the Python-list