Two minor syntactic proposals
jeff at ccvcorp.com
Mon Jun 18 20:57:59 CEST 2001
philh at comuno.freeserve.co.uk (phil hunt) wrote in message news:<slrn9ipjok.5je.philh at comuno.freeserve.co.uk>...
> I propose a different way of doing this: make 'self' implied in all
> references to instance variables. This involves definiing 2 new keywords,
> qclass and insvars. So:
> qclass Thing:
> insvar v, w
> def myMethod(p):
> print p, v, x
> def otherMethod():
> would be equivalent to:
> class Thing:
> def myMethod(self, p):
> print p, self.v, x
> def otherMethod(self):
> Note that a qclass definition would have to know what its methods and instance
> variables were, including those inherited from superclasses, for this to work.
> Is this feasible?
I much prefer having all member variables and member functions explicitly
qualified. Having moved to Python from C++, where members can be referred
to implicitly, it seems to me that the explicit requirement of Python makes
code *much* easier to read--no more hunting about to try to figure out whether
a given variable is a class member, or a parameter, or a global, or from some
other scope... then there's also this problem (using your notation):
spam = 23
Does this modify the member variable Thing.spam? Or does it create a
new spam variable that is local to Thing.foo()'s scope? I presume that
you'd want the former--but the latter behavior is more consistent with the
way that Python generally operates (i.e., builtins and globals are re-bound),
so having an exception for class members would be potentially confusing.
More information about the Python-list