I am happy to see that others agree we need something better than self.x=x; self.y=y; self.z=z.
Phillip J. Eby wrote: > class grouping: > def __init__(self, x, y, z): > initialize(self, locals()) Been there (older code): http://phenix-online.org/cctbx_sources/scitbx/scitbx/python_utils/misc.py I don't like it because - I do have to remember how to import adopt_init_args/initialize. - I also have to remember the locals() part (unpythonic boilerplate again). - I get both self.x and x. This lead to subtle bugs a few times when I accidentally assigned to x instead of self.x or vice versa in the wrong place). - It is sure to be less efficient than the .x support I propose. I'd be happy if - adopt_init_args/initialize became a (efficiently implemented) Python built-in. - and the locals() part is not needed. However, IMO the .x solution is still far better because I often want to do something like this: class grouping: def __init__(self, .keep_this, .and_this, but_not_this, .but_this_again): pass With the adopt_init_args/initialize solution you'd have to write: class grouping: def __init__(self, keep_this, and_this, but_not_this, but_this_again): initialize(self, locals(), exclude=["but_not_this"]) Unpythonic boilerplate again (the but_not_this duplication). Cheers, Ralf _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
