"@" instead of "this."

[yegor256]

How about we use @ sign in front of attribute names instead of this. (like in Java)? Sounds practical to me. This is how Ruby works.

[monsieurluge]

Is this keyword really usefull ?

I mean, if all the properties owned by the object are private and immutable, why should we add this keyword to access these properties ?

Same for the methods.

[mdbs99]

@monsieurluge
Using a prefix like @ turns the code more readable.
But, I agree, if we want we can cut both (this and @) defining a pattern: All variable created inside the constructor, will be attributes. The only problem is a colision names between arguments and attributes.

[yegor256]

@monsieurluge well, but what about method arguments? We have to distinguish them somehow from attributes:

Integer {
  int @value;
  void add(int value) {
    @value += value;
  }
}

See?

[monsieurluge]

Of course, but in many case it's just a naming convention issue.

"@" reminds me annotations. But, i agree that it's a very short way to see where are the object's properties.

If you want to keep a keyword, why not "self" ? The object is composed by its internal properties so the "self" keyword sounds better for me in an object oriented context.

[mdbs99]

I like the word, self — because Object Pascal — but this isn't good. The same for this.
Sometimes developers will write self.value, sometimes not (because the argument name is just v). This is a inconsistence.

IMO It's better to use only one way, one style.

[yegor256]

@mdbs99 I also like @ notation. It's explicit and can't be skipped.

[yegor256]

pull request is here: #18 If there are no strong objectives, I will merge it

[yegor256]

no objectives, merged :)