Attack a sacred Python Cow
bdesth.quelquechose at free.quelquepart.fr
Sun Jul 27 20:25:57 CEST 2008
Marcus.CM a écrit :
> Well after reading some of these posts on "sacred python cow" on the
> "self" , i would generally feel that most programmers
> who started with C++/Java would find it odd. And its true, i agree
> completely there should not be a need to put "self" into every single
> member function.
"member function" is C++. The way Python works is that you defines
functions (inside or outside a class, that doesn't matter) that, when
set as *class* attributes, are used as the *implementation* of the
I think it's very important to use appropriate terms to understand
what's really going on here. As soon as you understand that what you
"def"ine is a *not* a method, but a *function* (eventually) used as the
*implementation* of a method, the necessary declaration of the target
object (instance or class) in the function's signature just makes sense
- the usual way to make some object accessible to the body of a
function is to pass this object as argument, isn't it ?
> What could be done instead is :-
> 1. python should hardcode the keyword "self". So whenever this keyword
> is used, it would automatically implied that it is
> referring to a class scope variable.
Usually, 'self' is used for *instance* attributes, you know. "class
attribute" are attributes of the class object itself (that is, shared by
all instances of the class).
> This would be similar to how the
> "this" keyword is used in C++.
> 2. Omit self from the parameter.
Now how would it work for functions defined outside a class statement,
but used as the implementation of a method ?
# dummy exemple code
Tata.tutu = toto
tutu = toto
More information about the Python-list