Why a class when there will only be one instance?

[Donald 'Paddy' McCarthy]

Ryan Paul wrote:
> On Tue, 25 May 2004 21:20:02 -0400, Roy Smith wrote:
> 
> 
>>Ryan Paul <segphault at sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>>>defining a class may be useful if you plan on making more instances down
>>>the line. It's a good OO strategy. I do understand your dislike of 'self'.
>>>It does seem like clutter. In my code, I shorten it to 's'.
>>
>>Please don't do that.  While it's true that the first parameter of a 
>>class method can be named anything, the use of "self" is so 
>>overwhelmingly ubiquitous it might as well be a standard.  Using 
>>anything else is just going to make your code more difficult for anybody 
>>else to read and understand.
>>
>>Typing is cheap.  Thinking is expensive.  And, yes Aahz, you can quote 
>>me on that :-)
> 
> 
> I dont conform to a bad standard just because it's a standard. If I did, I
> would be using java instead of a dynamic language like python. If other
> people dont like it, thats too bad- they dont have to use my code.
> 
It's your code but might I suggest that you then be consistent in your 
naming convention to aid re-use?
- Pad.