PEP 318

Jacek Generowicz jacek.generowicz at cern.ch
Mon Mar 22 11:04:30 CET 2004


"John Roth" <newsgroups at jhrothjr.com> writes:

> I personally think that self not only should be a keyword,
> it should not be among the parameters at all. However, I
> seem to be in a distinct minority about that.

The existence of C++ or Java coding guidelines which advocate the
universal use of this->member or the use of m_member for all member
data and function names, is (to me) evidence of the necessity of self.

Also, ask an average[*] C++ programmer whether the following functions
have the same type:

void A::foo(void);
void B::foo(void);

(where A and B are both classes).

In my experience[+], they will, typically, be adamant that the types
are identical. If they have been exposed to Python, then you have more
than a fair chance that they will understand that the types are, in
fact, different.

Python's explicit passing of self makes people understand what is
going on, much better ... and I think that is a very valuable thing.


[*] And we all know just how dangerous "average" C++ programmers are.

[+] You probably don't want to know why I have had ample opportunity
    to ask this question, in real life.



More information about the Python-list mailing list