Getting rid of "self."

[BJörn Lindqvist]

I think it would be cool if you could refer to instance variables
without prefixing with "self." I know noone else thinks like me so
Python will never be changed, but maybe you can already do it with
Python today?

..import sys
..
..def magic():
.. s = ""
.. for var in sys._getframe(1 ).f_locals["self"].__dict__:
.. s += var + " = self." + var + "\n"
.. return s
..
..class A:
.. def __init__(self):
.. self.hi = "yo"
..
.. def meth(self):
.. exec(magic())
.. print hi
..
..a = A()
..a.meth()

It works! exec(magic()) does the needed hi = self.hi. Not so
impressive in this case but much cooler when there is more instance
variables around. But the solution is very ugly because you have to
write exec(magic()) in every method. So I'm asking here if someone
knows a better way, maybe using decorators or metaclasses or other
black magic?
--
mvh Björn

[Bruno Desthuilliers]

BJörn Lindqvist a écrit :

I think it would be cool if you could refer to instance variables
without prefixing with "self." I know noone else thinks like me so
Python will never be changed, but maybe you can already do it with
Python today?
(snip code)
It works! exec(magic()) does the needed hi = self.hi. Not so
impressive in this case but much cooler when there is more instance
variables around. But the solution is very ugly because you have to
write exec(magic()) in every method. So I'm asking here if someone
knows a better way, maybe using decorators or metaclasses or other
black magic?

The better way is definitively to forget about black magic and
understand why mandatory 'self' is Good Thing (tm).

(Tip : even when [this|self|@|wha tsoever] is not mandatory, using it
makes for much more readable code.)

Bruno

[John Roth]

"BJörn Lindqvist" <bj*****@gmail. com> wrote in message
news:ma******** *************** *************** @python.org...
I think it would be cool if you could refer to instance variables
without prefixing with "self." I know noone else thinks like me so
Python will never be changed, but maybe you can already do it with
Python today?

....

It works! exec(magic()) does the needed hi = self.hi. Not so
impressive in this case but much cooler when there is more instance
variables around. But the solution is very ugly because you have to
write exec(magic()) in every method. So I'm asking here if someone
knows a better way, maybe using decorators or metaclasses or other
black magic?

[response]

Having to specify the instance explicitly is something that
Python needs because it isn't a statically typed language.
In a statically typed language, all variables are pre-declared,
so the compiler knows where they all are.

Python's compiler knows about local variables. It
doesn't know where any other variables are, so it
has to search. Including the instance as one of the
method parameters means that the search splits
right at the front: either it starts looking up the
instance, or it goes up the definition chain (usually
empty) to the module namespace and then the
builtins.

Eliminating "self" would mean it would have to
either search the instance before the module and
builtins, or search the module and builtins before
the instance. This is both a performance issue
and a maintenance issue because of the increased
possibility of one shadowing the other.

This is distinct from the issue of how to spell
"self". As another responder has already said,
you can spell it any way you want; it's simply
whatever you choose to call the first paramteter
to the method.

Going the other way, the word "self" could become
a keyword, removing the necessity of specifying it
among the method parameters. While I like the idea,
there's enough dislike of the notion that it's not going
to happen.

John Roth
--
mvh Björn

[Jeremy Bowers]

On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 14:39:09 +0100, BJörn Lindqvist wrote:

It works! exec(magic()) does the needed hi = self.hi.

No it doesn't. Try "hi = 'newValue'" and see what happens.

So the next step is to write an "unmagic" function. So now how do you add
instance variables?

There is no way to avoid "self" *and* not pre-declare variables in some
fashion as belonging to the instance (as declarations, as sigils, what
have you). Given that Python is not, will not, and should not do the
latter, I submit that "self" is, at least for you, the lesser of two
evils. (I don't consider it evil at all, so it isn't such for me; were I
programming in C++ routinely now I'd prefix "this" and dispense with that
ugly "m_" garbage. (One of the things I ***hate*** about C++ culture is
its acceptance of hideously ugly variable names, but now I'm two
parentheticals deep so I probably ought to stop.))

[Roy Smith]

Jeremy Bowers <je**@jerf.or g> wrote:

were I programming in C++ routinely now I'd prefix "this" and
dispense with that ugly "m_" garbage. (One of the things I ***hate***
about C++ culture is its acceptance of hideously ugly variable names,
but now I'm two parentheticals deep so I probably ought to stop.))

I'm currently working in a C++ system where they have a wrapper class
that provides some transaction locking functionality for member access.
The colloquial name for the wrapped "this" pointer is self, i.e. they do
"self = wrapper (this)" at the beginning of functions that need it. You
can then do "member" to get the bare access or "self.membe r" to get the
locking functionality.

It's actually kind of neat, but boy does it play headgames with me when
I switch back and forth between that and Python.

[Nick Coghlan]

Roy Smith wrote:

It's actually kind of neat, but boy does it play headgames with me when
I switch back and forth between that and Python.

Switching back and forth betwen C++ and Python plays headgames *anyway* }:>

Cheers,
Nick.
Hardware control with Python is nice. . .

--
Nick Coghlan | nc******@email. com | Brisbane, Australia
---------------------------------------------------------------
http://boredomandlaziness.skystorm.net