[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > does object-oriented refer to that everything(strings, ints etc) are > all objects? so there is a class string somewhere in the > implementation rather than a primitive or somehing?
The term is used (and abused) in different ways. The term "object oriented" is usually an abbreviation of "object-oriented programming", which contrasts with the older practice of "procedural programming". It refers to the shift in focus, away from programs that feed data through a mostly-linear procedural process, and toward programs that define how objects behave and change state, and interact with other objects. > are python functions objects? Yes. > can a functional language be object-oriented or an objectoriented > language be functional? Yes. Again, it's m ore accurate to say that a language *enables* a particular style of programming. Python enables procedural programming, object-oriented programming, and functional programming. > one definition of OO is a language that passes messages between > objects. but not necessarily that is has to pass message sbetween > classes? Classes only exist to define functionality, including the functionality of creating instances of themselves. It's those instances that contain state data, and that pass messages back and forth. Think of a class as a type definition (and, indeed, types and classes are now unified in Python since early in the 2.x series), and instances as specific values of that type. The type defines the behaviour of its instances, but the instances are what the program actually uses. -- \ "Madness is rare in individuals, but in groups, parties, | `\ nations and ages it is the rule." -- Friedrich Nietzsche | _o__) | Ben Finney -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
