On Jul 27, 10:55 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <[EMAIL PROTECTED] central.gen.new_zealand> wrote: > 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).
Wrong. What the OP complains about has no relevance on what makes a language OO or not. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
