4 ms·

Another response from a different source. Having to include self as a method argument means that those are not methods, but static functions. This really means

by nahname 14y ago

Another response from a different source. Having to include self as a method argument means that those are not methods, but static functions. This really means there isn't precisely methods at all and the whole OOP part of python appears hacked together. That part seriously turned me off when I encountered it. If there is a valid reason for this, it would go a long way in explaining away one of the major reasons I dislike python. Edit: Appears to be a bug and I cannot respond to your post 'masklinn'. Can you rework the example to include the result as 42 being an instance variable instead? Thanks.

masklinn 14y ago
> Another response from a different source. Having to include self as a method argument means that those are not methods, but static functions. This declaration makes no sense. > This really means there isn't precisely methods at all Of course there is: >>> class Foo(object): ... def bar(self): return 42 ... >>> type(Foo().bar) <type 'instancemethod'> >>> m = Foo().bar >>> m() 42 > If there is a valid reason for this, it would go a long way in explaining away one of the major reasons I dislike python. I don't know (and don't really care) if you'll consider it "a valid reason", but here's GvR's reasoning: http://neopythonic.blogspot.be/2008/10/why-explicit-self-has-to-stay.html http://neopythonic.blogspot.be/2008/10/why-explicit-self-has...
jemfinch 14y ago
Functions don't magically become methods just because the language hid the "self" or "this" parameter. You're focusing on irrelevant details.
- nahname 14y ago
  It's not that the language is hiding self/this so much as what manually passing those as variables represent. What you are saying is that you never need to call a method like this? > instance.method(instance)
  - majormajor 14y ago
    You only have to list self in the declaration, you don't have to pass the instance to itself. Borrowing masklinn's example: >>> class Foo(object): ... def __init__(self): ... self.n = 42 ... def bar(self): ... return self.n ... >>> f = Foo() >>> f.bar() 42
    - masklinn 14y ago
      Although you can also (and that can be rather neat when e.g. mapping or filtering) use the method as a function, if you get it from the class: f = Foo() Foo.bar(f) note that it will typecheck the first argument to ensure it's an instance of `Foo`, it's not a function, it's an unbound method: >>> class Bar(object): pass ... >>> b = Bar() >>> b.n = 66 >>> Foo.bar(b) Traceback (most recent call last): File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module> TypeError: unbound method bar() must be called with Foo instance as first argument (got Bar instance instead)
      - mattdeboard 14y ago
        If you want to do that use the @staticmethod decorator.
        masklinn 14y ago
        Oh just, you know, create a function... There's nothing more pointless than @staticmethod, unless it was used specifically to port code it should mark whoever used it for a whipping.
eternalban 14y ago
> "... python appears hacked together ..." I had to extract that as a concise summation of my subjective view of the language as a whole. (Note: hacked != bad.)

by nahname 14y ago

masklinn 14y ago

> Another response from a different source. Having to include self as a method argument means that those are not methods, but static functions. This declaration makes no sense. > This really means there isn't precisely methods at all Of course there is: >>> class Foo(object): ... def bar(self): return 42 ... >>> type(Foo().bar) <type 'instancemethod'> >>> m = Foo().bar >>> m() 42 > If there is a valid reason for this, it would go a long way in explaining away one of the major reasons I dislike python. I don't know (and don't really care) if you'll consider it "a valid reason", but here's GvR's reasoning: http://neopythonic.blogspot.be/2008/10/why-explicit-self-has-to-stay.html http://neopythonic.blogspot.be/2008/10/why-explicit-self-has...

jemfinch 14y ago

Functions don't magically become methods just because the language hid the "self" or "this" parameter. You're focusing on irrelevant details.

nahname 14y ago
It's not that the language is hiding self/this so much as what manually passing those as variables represent. What you are saying is that you never need to call a method like this? > instance.method(instance)
- majormajor 14y ago
  You only have to list self in the declaration, you don't have to pass the instance to itself. Borrowing masklinn's example: >>> class Foo(object): ... def __init__(self): ... self.n = 42 ... def bar(self): ... return self.n ... >>> f = Foo() >>> f.bar() 42
  - masklinn 14y ago
    Although you can also (and that can be rather neat when e.g. mapping or filtering) use the method as a function, if you get it from the class: f = Foo() Foo.bar(f) note that it will typecheck the first argument to ensure it's an instance of `Foo`, it's not a function, it's an unbound method: >>> class Bar(object): pass ... >>> b = Bar() >>> b.n = 66 >>> Foo.bar(b) Traceback (most recent call last): File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module> TypeError: unbound method bar() must be called with Foo instance as first argument (got Bar instance instead)
    - mattdeboard 14y ago
      If you want to do that use the @staticmethod decorator.
      - masklinn 14y ago
        Oh just, you know, create a function... There's nothing more pointless than @staticmethod, unless it was used specifically to port code it should mark whoever used it for a whipping.

eternalban 14y ago

> "... python appears hacked together ..." I had to extract that as a concise summation of my subjective view of the language as a whole. (Note: hacked != bad.)