Guido's new method definition idea

Bruno Desthuilliers bdesth.quelquechose at free.quelquepart.fr
Sat Dec 6 15:54:44 CET 2008


Daniel Fetchinson a écrit :
> Hi folks,
> 
> The story of the explicit self in method definitions has been
> discussed to death and we all know it will stay. However, Guido
> himself acknowledged that an alternative syntax makes perfect sense
> and having both (old and new) in a future version of python is a
> possibility since it maintains backward compatibility. The alternative
> syntax will be syntactic sugar for the old one. This blog post of his
> is what I'm talking about:
> 
> http://neopythonic.blogspot.com/2008/10/why-explicit-self-has-to-stay.html
> 
> The proposal is to allow this:
> 
> class C:
>     def self.method( arg ):
>         self.value = arg
>         return self.value
> 
> instead of this:
> 
> class C:
>     def method( self, arg ):
>         self.value = arg
>         return self.value
> 
(snip)
> I'd like this new way of defining methods, what do you guys think?

-1

As far as I'm concerned, it doesn't add anything to the language, nor 
doesn't save any typing, so I just don't see the point. And having it 
co-existing with the normal syntax will only add more confusion.

NB : FWIW, I would eventually have voted -0 if it had been proposed for 
Python 3, and as a _replacement_ (not _alternative_) to the current 
syntax. But Python 3 is now released, so...



More information about the Python-list mailing list