[Types-sig] Re: Meta-classes discussion starter
Tim Peters
tim_one@email.msn.com
Wed, 2 Dec 1998 21:49:05 -0500
[John Skaller]
> ...
> And that is it. :-) There is no such thing as a class :-))
> It is nothing more than a function which makes objects.
[Tim]
>> John, Python is not a functional language, and there's not a shadow
>> of a hint that it will ever become one.
[John]
> You're not following.
You're not anticipating <wink>.
> I'm analysing the _structure_ of a system. I'm telling you classes are
> _isomorphic_ to functions; and providing the isomorphism.
Up above, yes; below, no. You went quite a ways beyond casting the
semantics in functional form: (A) you want others to adopt that view of
semantics too; and, (B) you want programmatic support for that view added to
Python.
> I didn't claim 'python was a functional language'.
No, I hardly think anyone would. You do want to move it in that direction,
though, don't you? Let's cut to the chase:
> ...
> My suggestion is for more builtin functions, of the kind needed
> to construct functions.
>> How about a specific proposal?
> There is some code available for browsing.
How about a specific proposal?
most-people-don't-even-get-one-engraved-invitation<wink>-ly y'rs - tim