Do pythons like sugar?
Andrew Dalke
adalke at mindspring.com
Thu Jan 9 05:25:41 EST 2003
More information about the Python-list mailing list
Thu Jan 9 05:25:41 EST 2003
- Previous message (by thread): Do pythons like sugar?
- Next message (by thread): Do pythons like sugar?
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Afanasiy wrote: >>A few languages provide syntax sugar for dealing with >>this by allowing you to localize the class scope. >> >>Does Python? eg. `with self do:` > So the answer is a definitive no? I want to do things as I have them, > I don't want to change my design just to be able to type 'self' less. It's a definite no. From previous accounts, said sugar is hiding rat poison. It's advantages are slight to its disadvantages. Eg, for your case it would have hid a poor implementation rather than yield a better one. When I do a lot of "self." references it's mostly with a set of initializations. In that case I just leave "self." in my paste buffer. > Is there any tricky one-liner that brings object members in scope? Yes but I won't tell. You shouldn't use it. > P.S. The specific implementation above should be considered irrelevant. In order to add a new feature, especially one which affect the language like that, then you'll need to come up with a pressing example. If there isn't one, then there's no need for a change, eh? Andrew dalke at dalkescientific.com
- Previous message (by thread): Do pythons like sugar?
- Next message (by thread): Do pythons like sugar?
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the Python-list mailing list