Progress on missing features?

[Dinu Gherman]

On Tue, 14 Aug 2001 16:46:43 GMT, Courageous <jkraska1 at san.rr.com>
wrote:

>>  - class methods
>
>>The first two could be considered quite important for ma-
>>king the language more complete in terms of object orien-
>>tation.
>
>If you reframe your thinking and do module-level methods instead,
>treating a module as an object, you will have achieved everything
>here that you ever need to achieve with a class method.

That sounds like a lot of people need to spend a lot of 
time to think how to implement something that is more or
less a straightforward concept in other OO languages in
Python.

I don't doubt a second class methods can be faked that 
way in Python, but I doubt this could be advertised as 
the best way to do it, just because it is pretty far away 
from "traditional" OO thinking. It might be the best one
today, but it feels more like a hack than being the proper 
solution, doesn't it?

Maybe I'm too radical, but I only try to argue for making 
something conceptually easy also easy to use rather than 
only by thinking-around-the-corner.
 
Dinu

-- 
Dinu C. Gherman
dinu at reportlab dot com
http://www.reportlab.com
................................................................
"The only possible values [for quality] are 'excellent' and 'in-
sanely excellent', depending on whether lives are at stake or 
not. Otherwise you don't enjoy your work, you don't work well, 
and the project goes down the drain." 
                    (Kent Beck, "Extreme Programming Explained")