A better self

[Matt Gerrans]

> I have no problem with "self" (or whatever) being equivelent to a leading
> '.', but '..' would be confused with "up directory" syntax of U*x -
although
> it's tempting to suggest it as an alternative for global <grin>.

In keeping with that concept, '..' would be referring to the base class
(equivalent to java's "super").   Or would that be mixing metaphors?   (in
Ruby, mixin metaphors).