Two minor syntactic proposals

John Roth johnroth at
Thu Jun 21 22:55:30 CEST 2001

"phil hunt" <philh at> wrote in message
news:slrn9j275n.9oi.philh at
> On Wed, 20 Jun 2001 18:44:16 GMT, Bengt Richter <bokr at>
> >On 18 Jun 2001 11:57:59 -0700, jeff at (Jeff Shannon) wrote:
> >
> >>philh at (phil hunt) wrote in message
news:<slrn9ipjok.5je.philh at>...
> >>>
> >>> I propose a different way of doing this: make 'self' implied in all
> >>> references to instance variables. This involves definiing 2 new
> >>> qclass and insvars. So:
> >I think I prefer just an easier way to type "self."
> >How about just the dot? I.e., ".x" means "self.x"
> That sounds a good idea.

I like it! I don't think it will break anything.

However, since you wouldn't have to type "self." any more,
then the "self" parameter itself becomes meaningless, and can be
eliminated. This also solves the "class method" issue. If it doesn't
contain a prefixed dot, then it doesn't require an instance, so it's
clearly a class method.

It'll never fly. Think of all that code out there that would break if we
took away that first parameter... And then, there's the point that keeps
getting pounded to death in the PEP255 discussion - it's bad news to
distinguish two different animals by some detail of their internals.

> >>I much prefer having all member variables and member functions
> >>qualified.  Having moved to Python from C++, where members can be
> >>to implicitly, it seems to me that the explicit requirement of Python
> >>code *much* easier to read--no more hunting about to try to figure out
> >>a given variable is a class member, or a parameter, or a global, or from
> >>other scope...  then there's also this problem (using your notation):
> >[...more reasons...]
> >
> >So what about a plain  prefixed '.' as an abbreviation for 'self.' ?
> i wish i'd thought of it
> --
> ##  Philip Hunt                   ##
> ##  philh at  ##

More information about the Python-list mailing list