Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!bloom-beacon!mit-eddie!uw-beaver!tektronix!tekcrl!jans From: jans@tekcrl.TEK.COM (Jan Steinman) Newsgroups: comp.lang.smalltalk Subject: Re: Is SELF a naughty OOP construct? Message-ID: <2692@tekcrl.TEK.COM> Date: 31 May 88 22:01:03 GMT Organization: Tektronix Inc., Beaverton, Or. Lines: 24 Quite the contrary! When I'm reviewing code, a little flag goes up in my head whenever I see methods that do not refer to "self". I then start looking for who is getting all the terminal messages -- if 60% of them are going to one object, for instance aStream, I think to myself, "Hmm. This method really belongs in Stream!" There is also a strong movement toward more use of accessing protocol as a way of enhancing inheritance, which would be impossible without the use of "self". The fact that "self" refers to the receiver rather than the implementor makes it rather non-analogous to your GOTO example -- "self" more closely resembles the oft desired COMEFROM in its actions! I agree fully with Brian (op cit) that "super" is a much less tidy concept, and also submit another more deserving of scorn than "self": "thisContext". It is something one either hates or loves, depending on whether one is trying to understand someone else's code, or is attempting to do some tricky hackery. :::::: Software Productivity Technologies -- Experiment Manager Project :::::: :::::: Jan Steinman N7JDB Box 500, MS 50-383 (w)503/627-5881 :::::: :::::: jans@tekcrl.TEK.COM Beaverton, OR 97077 (h)503/657-7703 ::::::