Report error if self has explicit type

[JukkaL]

For example, the following program should not be accepted:

class A:
    def f(self: Any): pass

[JukkaL]

Actually, having a self argument with an Any type should be accepted. This can be useful when adapting dynamically typed programs. However, the following are bad at least stylistically, and it would be useful to report them somewhow:

• explicit, non-Any type for the self argument
• missing self argument

Since the name of self is up to the programmer, we can't just complain if the first argument is not spelled 'self'. So this might be a good compromise: give a warning if the first argument of a method has an explicit type that is not Any.

Now we can also diagnose some cases of forgetting to include self, without having to assume that it is spelled self:

class A:
    def f(x: int) -> None: ...    # Explicit type, not any => warning

This does not strictly have to be an error. For example, consider the above example: if the function is only called as A.f the code could arguably be considered valid (though probably of questionable style).

[ashleyh]

@JukkaL: I can do this one.

[rwbarton]

Given the situation with #1586 I'm going to retag this as "needs discussion".

[gvanrossum]

I wonder if we could do something like this:

• If the first arg is named self we assume it's going to be called as an instance method (assuming there's no @classmethod or @staticmethod) and the type of self should be compatible with the class (whatever that means)
• If the first arg has another name, we're not sure; we allow any explicit type, but if there's no type we still assume it's an instance method (assuming the method is annotated at all)
• If the method is not annotated we assume nothing, except if --check-untyped-defs is used; then we use the same heuristic (whether the first arg is named self)

[elazarg]

I think we can close this issue.

[gvanrossum]

Whoops! Indeed.