In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Hendrik van Rooyen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Ron Garret" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > One of the things I find annoying about Python is that when you make a > > change to a method definition that change is not reflected in existing > > instances of a class (because you're really defining a new class when > > you reload a class definition, not actually redefining it). So I came > > up with this programming style: > > I would have thought that not changing yesterday was the very essence of > dynamism (dynamicness ??) - but that when you change something - it applies > from that point in time forwards... I don't want to get into a philosophical debate. I'll just point you to CLOS as an example of an object system that already works this way. > What do you propose to do about the outputs from such classes that have > already happened? The ability to change methods on the fly will be used mainly for debugging I expect. rg -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
