In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > 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.
Reread what the OP said. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
