terminological obscurity

[Arthur]

On Tue, 25 May 2004 08:19:49 +0200, "Fredrik Lundh"
<fredrik at pythonware.com> wrote:

>Arthur wrote:
>>
>> Well for one, before new style classes, it was easier to think of an
>> "instance" as in some sense a pseudo data type.  Instances of
>> different classes - even with no hierarchical relationship - were more
>> conceptually homogenous.
>
>nonsense.  Python has always used duck typing (what's important is what
>you can do with x, not what type(x) happens to be).  this hasn't changed a
>bit.
>
>(if you don't understand duck typing, you don't really understand Python)
>
></F>

Nonsense.

I understand Python - but at a practical user level. If understanding
it at that level isn't under5staning it, than it is not what it claims
to be.

Art