is python Object oriented??

[Michael Torrie]

thmpsn.m.k at gmail.com wrote:
>> To be clear, python does not force you to lay out your code according to
>> some strict object-oriented paradigm.  But Python itself is still purely
>> object-oriented, as is your script when parsed.
>
> But it's only a faking, and things such as inheritance and
> polymorphism are implemented clumsily (actually I'm not even sure
> about polymorphism). And of course, there are still no private
> members.

How is it faking?  The class of a function object is "function," which
is of the metaclass "type."  What more do you want?  If Guido himself
declared that functions are objects would you believe that?  Or modules?

Since a function object is an instance of the class "function" I don't
see how you could inherit from it, and polymorphism has nothing to do
with this either.  Maybe what you are talking about is deriving a class
from the class "function."  Not sure if that's allowed, mainly because
the language has defined a standard way of declaring a function (methods
are functions too, of course), so creating a useful, derived function
object would be difficult given how the syntax of the language works.

Private members?  I could stick add any attribute I wanted to a function
object and ask that people treat it as private if I wanted to:

def myfunc():
    pass

myfunc.__dict__['_private'] = 4

If you are insinuating that not forcing private attributes to be
unaccessible by others (black box theory) is in somehow a violation of
object-oriented semantics, think again.  It's not.  (There are no formal
definitions of OO anyay, but wikipedia lists quite a few characteristics
considered common to OO, and enforced private members is not one of them.)