Why the 'self' argument?

[John Roth]

"Grant Edwards" <grante at visi.com> wrote in message
news:3f591d28$0$175$a1866201 at newsreader.visi.com...
> In article <vli387c9mm140a at news.supernews.com>, John Roth wrote:
>
> >> So that there's no difference between a function and a method.
> >>
> >> Simplicity and orthogonality are good things -- despite what
> >> C++ proponents thing.
> >>
> >> > Hence my comment that requiring it is more complex than not
> >> > requiring it.
> >>
> >> No, it's more complex the Java/Ruby way, since you have to have
> >> two sets of rules for what a name means depending on whether
> >> you're inside a "normal" function or a method.  In Python
> >> there's just one set of rules -- mostly.
> >
> > As I said earlier, it's quite possible to define it so that there
> > is always an instance of some kind; whether that's an instance
> > a class or the module itself.
>
> I don't follow.  You're talking about defining a keyword that
> always refers to the first parameter passed to a function?  And
> the declared parameters would refer to the 2nd through Nth
> parameters?  What if the keyword isn't used in the function
> definition, then do the delcared parameters refer to the 1st
> through Nth?

When Python invokes a function, it binds the operands in the
function call to the identifiers named in the function / method
header. If this is a method, it binds the instance (which is not
in the invocation parameter list, btw.) to the first
parameter in the method header.

If you make "self" a reserved word, then all it has to do
is bind the instance to "self," rather than the first identifier
in the parameter list.

In current python, there are two classes of functions (module
level and embedded) and three classes of methods (instance,
class and static.) Instance methods get the current instance,
class methods get the class object as the instance, and the other
three categories get nothing.

As a separate suggestion, I'd have Python bind the module
object to "self" for module functions and static methods. I
haven't figured out what I want done with embedded methods
and unbound methods yet. Notice that this eliminates the
need for the global statement for module functions - all
identifiers are accessible for rebinding through "self."

> > I think my comments have shown that you can reduce the amount
> > of scoping / name space rules noticably.
>
> Compared to what?  It sure sounds like you're introducing more
> rules than there are now.  How would you propose reducing the
> number of rules?

If you don't have to write "self" as the first parameter of a method,
that reduces the complexity. Everything else remains the same.

John Roth
>
> -- 
> Grant Edwards                   grante             Yow!  Somewhere in
Tenafly,
>                                   at               New Jersey, a
chiropractor
>                                visi.com            is viewing "Leave it to
>                                                    Beaver"!