petef4+usenet at gmail.com
Sat Jun 18 08:04:17 EDT 2016
Rustom Mody <rustompmody at gmail.com> writes:
> On Friday, June 17, 2016 at 2:58:19 PM UTC+5:30, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>> On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 06:13 pm, Ned Batchelder wrote:
>> > To me, it's a toss-up. The chained version is nice in that it
>> > removes the repetition of "g". But the unchained version is more
>> > explicit, and avoids the awkward parenthesis.
>> > I think I would lean toward the unchained version. Clearly tastes
>> > can differ.
>> Indeed. For what it's worth, I'm ever-so-slightly leaning towards
>> Lawrence's taste here.
> More than 'slightly' out here!
> One thing about python OOP that irritates me is the 'self.' clutter.
> With a Pascal/VB style with-statement its naturally taken care of
> Yeah I know there is this FAQ:
> I consider it bogus if we allow with to mean something like:
One subtle difference between your two citations is that VB uses a
leading dot. Might that lessening of ambiguity enable a future Python to
def .set(a): # equivalent to def set(self, a):
.a = a # equivalent to self.a = a
Unless it is in a with statement
.a = 1 # equivalent to obj.a = 1
.total = .total + 1 # obj.total = obj.total + 1
More information about the Python-list