History of 'self' and why not at least 'my'?

[Steve Holden]

"Duncan Booth" <duncan at NOSPAMrcp.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Xns91937D050795duncanrcpcouk at 127.0.0.1...
> Giorgi Lekishvili <gleki at gol.ge> wrote in news:3C3F4D4B.5922ABED at gol.ge:
>
> > I would like rather to have something akin of Pascal's or VB's 'with',
> > e.g., with self:
> >     bla1,
> >     bla2
> >     ...
> >
> > Grtz,
> > Giorgi
> >
>
> The FAQ describes why a "with" statement as you describe it doesn't work
in
> Python: see http://www.python.org/doc/FAQ.html#6.31
>
> However, what it doesn't really cover is that a common use of "with" is to
> reduce a complicated reference to an object:
> e.g. with obj[expression].field[exp].etc:
>         a = 5
>         b = 6
>
> If this is what you are trying to do, then Python already has a statement
> to handle this, namely 'assignment':
>         w = obj[expression].field[exp].etc
>         w.a = 5
>         w.b = 6
> The same technique can be used at a local level to reduce the overhead of
> typing self:
>     s = self
>     s.a, s.b, s.c = 1, 2, 3
>
I've added the first point to FAQ 6.31, but not the second. While it is
true, it would seem a little perverse to go to the lengths of writing

        def somemethod(self, *args):
            s = self
            s.a, s.b, s.c = 1, 2, 3

when you could just as easily write

        def somemethod(s, *args):
            s.a, s.b, s.c = 1, 2, 3

I know that this ignores the standard (conventional) reference name, but
then so does the former suggestion if the references to self are separated
by significant distance.

regards
 Steve
--
http://www.holdenweb.com/