In article <7xy6x9nzwd....@ruckus.brouhaha.com>, Paul Rubin <http://phr...@nospam.invalid> wrote: >Chris Rebert <c...@rebertia.com> writes: >>attribution deleted by Paul Rubin: >>> >>> class Calculator(): ... >> >> Delete the 3 Java-ish accessor methods; good Python style just uses >> the attributes directly (i.e. self.operator instead of >> self.getOperator()). > >I think I would get rid of the whole Calculator class unless there >was a good reason to keep it (i.e. you are going to have several >Calculators active in the program simultaneously). Just write >straightforward imperative code without bothering with the OO stuff >that is mandatory in Java.
IMO "good reason" is simply that using a class makes keeping track of namespaces easier, e.g. if you add a memory capability. I think that if there's clearly an object that you will be manipulating, a class is usually the right approach even if it doesn't look like it's needed. -- Aahz (a...@pythoncraft.com) <*> http://www.pythoncraft.com/ Weinberg's Second Law: If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker that came along would destroy civilization. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
