petef4+usenet at gmail.com
Sat Jun 18 11:42:07 EDT 2016
Joonas Liik <liik.joonas at gmail.com> writes:
> On 18 June 2016 at 15:04, Pete Forman <petef4+usenet at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 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
>> allow this?
>> class Foo:
>> def .set(a): # equivalent to def set(self, a):
>> .a = a # equivalent to self.a = a
>> Unless it is in a with statement
>> with obj:
>> .a = 1 # equivalent to obj.a = 1
>> .total = .total + 1 # obj.total = obj.total + 1
>> Pete Forman
> the leading dot does not resolve the ambiguity that arises from:
> with ob_a:
> with ob_b:
> .attr_c = 42 # which object are we modifying right now?
> that python would surely face.
> also with is allready used for context managers..
Yes, I ought not to have lumped in the with proposal with that for self.
Python's design FAQ clearly explains why the language does not need that
form of "with".
More information about the Python-list