On Jul 26, 6:47 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <[EMAIL PROTECTED] central.gen.new_zealand> wrote: > In message > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > 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. > > Yes it is, because it has "this".
You mean the keyword "this"? It's just a feature. How does that make a difference on being or not being OO? (It's true that C++ has more OO features than Python, like private/ public members, virtual methods, etc. But I don't see how a trivial feature like an additional keyword makes a difference.) -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
