Dominoes posted:

Hey, any pitfalls in using an abbreviation like sf in place of self? Seems like an easy way to improve readability by reducing clutter, and should be obvious to other users reading the code. I'm surprised I haven't read about this.

tef posted:

Please don't change a word everyone understands to save a measly two characters.

The reason you haven't read about it that it is a patently bad idea and against the spririt of PEP-8

Dominoes posted:

two * a_lot of characters.

self cluttering is an issue when using complex expressions/comprehensions, especially with long variable names.

Dominoes posted:

two * a_lot of characters.

self cluttering is an issue when using complex expressions/comprehensions, especially with long variable names.

Dominoes posted:

two * a_lot of characters.

self cluttering is an issue when using complex expressions/comprehensions, especially with long variable names.

evol262 posted:

Hi, I write Python all day every day.

Nobody cares about sf. If I looked at your code without being familiar with "sf", I'd be looking all over the place to find out where you imported that or where you set it as a global or something else. Everyone knows what "self" means. Explicit is better than implicit. Don't try to golf two characters with 'self' -> 'sf'. pep8 and pyflakes exist for a reason. Your code should cleanly pass linters.

Dominoes posted:

Hey, any pitfalls in using an abbreviation like sf in place of self? Seems like an easy way to improve readability by reducing clutter, and should be obvious to other users reading the code. I'm surprised I haven't read about this.

pmchem posted:

Speaking of linters, this code does not pass pylint: http://stackoverflow.com/a/6117124

Python code:

import re

rep = {"condition1": "", "condition2": "text"} # define desired replacements here

# use these three lines to do the replacement
rep = dict((re.escape(k), v) for k, v in rep.iteritems())
pattern = re.compile("|".join(rep.keys()))
text = pattern.sub(lambda m: rep[re.escape(m.group(0))], text)

There's a warning about the use of rep in the lambda expression. But man, it's a concise and well-done multiple search and replace on strings in a file. How would you guys write an alternative that passed pylint and PEP-8?

Dominoes posted:

two * a_lot of characters.

self cluttering is an issue when using complex expressions/comprehensions, especially with long variable names.

pmchem posted:

Speaking of linters, this code does not pass pylint: http://stackoverflow.com/a/6117124

Python code:

import re

rep = {"condition1": "", "condition2": "text"} # define desired replacements here

# use these three lines to do the replacement
rep = dict((re.escape(k), v) for k, v in rep.iteritems())
pattern = re.compile("|".join(rep.keys()))
text = pattern.sub(lambda m: rep[re.escape(m.group(0))], text)

There's a warning about the use of rep in the lambda expression. But man, it's a concise and well-done multiple search and replace on strings in a file. How would you guys write an alternative that passed pylint and PEP-8?

Dominoes posted:

two * a_lot of characters.

quote:

self cluttering is an issue when using complex expressions/comprehensions, especially with long variable names.

Symbolic Butt posted:

I kind of understand Dominoes because writing self over and over is kind of frustrating when you don't need to do that as much in other languages like C++, Java and Ruby.

Symbolic Butt posted:

I kind of understand Dominoes because writing self over and over is kind of frustrating when you don't need to do that as much in other languages like C++, Java and Ruby.

Symbolic Butt posted:

I kind of understand Dominoes because writing self over and over is kind of frustrating

EAT THE EGGS RICOLA posted:

How the heck is writing 'sf' over and over less annoying than writing 'self'?

Thermopyle posted:

lol, give the poor guy a break!

quote:

How many posts do we need to tell him this?

Symbolic Butt posted:

I kind of understand Dominoes because writing self over and over is kind of frustrating when you don't need to do that as much in other languages like C++, Java and Ruby.

tef posted:

Maybe I have no patience because it's been seven years in this goddamn thread


One didn't seem to be enough.


When I was a younger, petulant mess of a programmer, I too waltzed into python and the explicit self. I'd done Java, JavaScript, and a handful of terrible languages not even worth mentioning. I didn't like it much, but I'd often used /this.foo/ instead of /foo/ in Java. I liked to be able to see what I was doing. I wasn't so keen on what seemed to be self sneaking into my method arguments. Now I've been using python for a bit, it's probably the best feature of python.

Let's take a step back and look why it's there and what it does for us: Python doesn't have methods: It has functions in classes. This means you can call a method explicitly on an object, ClassName.method(object, args). This also means you can pull the function out and assign it to other classes, ClassOne.foo = ClassTwo.foo. It also means that obj.foo() is actually two operations, method = obj.foo; method(). The choice of making methods out functions gives us unique ways to build classes, and also lets us take a method and pass it around as a function.

This is incredibly useful, and it's obvious to see why when we compare it to other languages with objects.

In Ruby, you don't even have functions, there isn't really a notion of them. A top level def foo ... end is actually defining a private method on Object. I'll let that sink in: there are no functions in ruby. defining a top level method is monkey patching object. You also have to clumsily call method = object.method(:name_of_method), method.call(), to get the same results. Ruby ends up with a plethora of things that look like functions but all behave differently. Lambdas, Blocks, Procs, Methods.

In javascript, when do obj.foo(), and you do method = obj.foo; method() they do two entirely different things. JavaScript programmers must manually bind methods to objects if they want to capture them to pass around. Let us not forget var that = this — this isn't like a variable, nor acts like one, it doesn't obey the scoping rules that other languages have.

In python: methods are functions, and when you lookup obj.foo, it partially applies the function, setting the first argument to obj. self is just like any other argument, and can be captured inside nested function and class definitions. In many ways, it's not explicit self, but lexical self. it's just another variable, which is why you can call it anything you like. Python could chose to have both method and function types, and special self keyword, but we'd be doing this = self to lexically bind it, and also fun doing bind and unbind to play about with methods.

It gives you all of this expressive power and how do you thank it? Trying to rename it from something *every* python programmer calls it, and *every python programmer* has a habit of writing it. Why do you claim to do it? Readability? Optimization? Time saving. You have already saved yourself so much time by using lexical self that one or two keystrokes isn't going to make a project late.

Whining about lexical self and arguing to remove or shorten it for the very reasons lexical self exists. Lexical self is the best goddam thing in python, take a seat, shut the gently caress up, and learn why it's there. I have no loving patience for such foolish behaviour.

Shy posted:

JetBrains recently released free PyCharm Educational Edition, I thought someone may find it interesting.

hooah posted:

Is there somewhere that compares this and the community edition?

http://www.jetbrains.com/pycharm-educational/concepts/ posted:

PyCharm Educational Edition is based on the Community Edition and comprises all of its functionality. Additionally, it installs and detects Python during installation. It has a simpler UI (adjustable in settings) and adds a new "Educational" project type.

tef posted: