3 ms·
how is ':' less onerous than underscores i.e. '.__'? Sounds like you just have irrational hatred of underscore (or possibly love of colon?) btw having two or
by njharman 15y ago
how is ':' less onerous than underscores i.e. '.__'?
Sounds like you just have irrational hatred of underscore (or possibly love of colon?)
btw having two or more access operators '.', ':' and distinguishing between "internal/language" and "user" methods is a poor language design choice over having a standard but unenforced __ means "special" and "internal/language" and "user" all being coequal in semantics, syntax, rights and responsibilities.
- Kilimanjaro 15y ago"how is ':' less onerous than underscores i.e. '.__'?" There is no difference at all, just one char vs five if we count ending double-underscores too, and more visual noise. They both accomplish the same. Being both the same, what difference do you think there is between, in one hand .init() and .__init__(), and on the other hand .init() and :init() Just syntactic sugar, I rather pick my colon ;-)