Attack a sacred Python Cow
Russ.Paielli at gmail.com
Mon Jul 28 08:00:51 CEST 2008
On Jul 27, 10:32 pm, Terry Reedy <tjre... at udel.edu> wrote:
> Derek Martin wrote:
> > Furthermore, as you described, defining the function within the scope
> > of a class binds a name to the function and then makes it a method of
> > the class. Once that happens, *the function has become a method*.
> If you mean that a user-defined function object becomes a different
> class of object when bound to a class attribute name, that is wrong.
> Once a function, always a function. It may be called an 'instance
> method' but it is still a function. Any function object can be an
> attribute of multiple classes, without inheritance, or of none.
> When a function attribute is accessed via an instance of the class, it
> is *wrapped* with a bound method object that basically consists of
> references to the function and instance. When the 'bound method' is
> called, the instance is inserted in front of the other arguments to be
> matched with the first parameter.
> In 2.0, functions accessed through the class were rather uselessly
> wrapped as an 'unbound method', but those wrappers have been discarded
> in 3.0.
> > To be perfectly honest, the idea that an object method can be defined
> > outside the scope of an object (i.e. where the code has no reason to
> > have any knowledge of the object) seems kind of gross to me...
> I happen to like the simplicity that "def statements (and lambda
> expressions) create function objects." Period.
> > It does indeed -- it does more than imply. It states outright that
> > the function is defined within the namespace of that object,
> > and as such that it is inherently part of that object.
> False. That does not follow. Python objects generally exist
> independently of each other. Think of them as existing in a nameless
> dataspace if you want. Collection/container objects collect/contain
> references to their members, just as a club roster does, but they only
> metaphorically 'contain' their members. Any object can be a member of
> any number of collections, just as humans can join any number of clubs
> and groups. In mathematical set theory, membership is also non-exclusive.
> > So why should it need
> > to be explicitly told about the object of which it is already a part?
> Because it is not a 'part' of a class in the sense you seem to mean.
> What is true is that functions have a read-only reference to the global
> namespace of the module in which they are defined. But they do not have
> to be a member of that namespace.
> Terry Jan Reedy
This whole discussion reminds me of discussions I saw on comp.lang.ada
several years ago when I had a passing interest in Ada.
My memory on this is a bit fuzzy, but IFIRC Ada 95 did not support
standard OO "dot" syntax of the form
Instead, "myfunction" was just a "regular" function that took
"myObject" and "args" as arguments. It was called as
It was put into the appropriate package or subpackage where it
belonged rather than in a class definition. Namespaces were defined by
a package hierarchy rather than by classes (which is actually more
logical, but that's another topic).
Well, so many people demanded the "dot" notation that it was finally
implemented in Ada 2005. So now user can use the more familiar dot
notation, but my understanding is that it is just "syntactic sugar"
for the old notation.
So when Python people go out of their way to point out that class
"methods" in Python are implemented as regular functions, that seems
fairly obvious to me -- but perhaps only because of my passing
familiarity with Ada.
More information about the Python-list