Attack a sacred Python Cow

Lawrence D'Oliveiro ldo at geek-central.gen.new_zealand
Mon Jul 28 08:55:56 CEST 2008


In message
<c578790e-dfb4-4c7f-8647-282ab5f8a5d0 at y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
s0suk3 at gmail.com wrote:

> On Jul 27, 10:55 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l... at geek-
> central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
>> In message
>> <6385b0a8-f7f3-4dc3-91be-e6f158ffb... at a1g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
>>
>>
>>
>> s0s... at gmail.com wrote:
>> > On Jul 26, 6:47 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l... at geek-
>> > central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
>> >> In message
>> >> <024ace13-f72f-4093-bcc9-f8a339c32... at v1g2000pra.googlegroups.com>,
>>
>> >> s0s... at gmail.com wrote:
>> >> > On Jul 24, 5:01 am, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l... at geek-
>> >> > central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> In message
>> >> >>
<52404933-ce08-4dc1-a558-935bbbae7... at r35g2000prm.googlegroups.com>,
>> >> >> Jordan wrote:
>>
>> >> >> > Except when it comes to Classes. I added some classes to code
>> >> >> > that had previously just been functions, and you know what I did
>> >> >> > - or rather, forgot to do? Put in the 'self'. In front of some of
>> >> >> > the variable accesses, but more noticably, at the start of *every
>> >> >> > single method argument list.*
>>
>> >> >> The reason is quite simple. Python is not truly an
>> >> >> "object-oriented" language. It's sufficiently close to fool those
>> >> >> accustomed to OO ways of doing things, but it doesn't force you to
>> >> >> do things that way. You still have the choice. An implicit "self"
>> >> >> would take away that choice.
>>
>> >> > By that logic, C++ is not OO.
>>
>> >> Yes it is, because it has "this".
>>
>> > You mean the keyword "this"? It's just a feature. How does that make a
>> > difference on being or not being OO?
>>
>> Because it was one of the things the OP was complaining about (see
>> above).
> 
> Wrong.

Reread what the OP said.



More information about the Python-list mailing list