In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > 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?
Because it was one of the things the OP was complaining about (see above). -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
