On Jul 24, 5:01 am, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <[EMAIL PROTECTED] central.gen.new_zealand> wrote: > In message > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, 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. By that logic, Ruby is not OO. By that logic, I know of only one OO language: Java :) The fact that a language doesn't force you to do object-oriented programming doesn't mean that it's not object-oriented. In other words, your words are nonsense. Sebastian -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
