From: Dominik Bathon <dbatml@...>
Date: 2006-03-09T13:14:00+09:00
Subject: Re: Having a block executed in the context of an instance

On Thu, 09 Mar 2006 03:58:07 +0100, <dblack@wobblini.net> wrote:

> On Thu, 9 Mar 2006, Logan Capaldo wrote:
>
>> Hmmmmmm, It's shorter than self.attr, but on the other hand it's   
>> uglier IMO. One question I would have to wonder is:
>>
>> self.method( ) # definitely not private
>> method( ) # definitely private
>> self.x = y # could be public or private
>> .x # probably(?) not private ???
>> .x = y # ???
>>
>> Oh wait  I take the whole thing back, naked method( ) could be public  
>> too. I guess throwing .x  in there doesn't make the visibility any more  
>> confusing
>
> I wonder how the parser would handle:
>
>    obj .x
>
> i.e., whether it would be:
>
>    obj.x
>
> or
>
>    obj(.x)

I would say it should be obj.x, as I didn't propose to allow .meth as a  
general shortcut for self.meth, but only when it is a left hand side of an  
asignment.

But this leads to:

meth .attr=42

I would say that would also be meth.attr=42 and not meth(.attr=42). If you  
want the latter, then use brackets.


Dominik