On Jan 30, 2:32 pm, Michael Torrie <torr...@gmail.com> wrote: > Veerendra Ganiger wrote: > > Python is not purely object oriented programming, because we can write > > functions without any class. > > You are right, predefined class attributes are available when we write or > > execute a piece of python code without defining class, that means it's just > > using objects for it's purpose. It does not mean its purely object oriented. > > To be clear, python does not force you to lay out your code according to > some strict object-oriented paradigm. But Python itself is still purely > object-oriented, as is your script when parsed. > > This function without a class that you mentioned, is in fact an object > with attributes. You can pass a function around just like any other > object. Even calling a function is invoked like so: > > myfunc.__call__(params) > > So necessitating that code be inside a class has nothing to do with > object-oriented programming. Let's not forget that classes are > themselves objects (metaobjects in smalltalk parlance if I recall > correctly). > > Now python does not have any way besides lambda expressions of creating > unbound function objects, but in practice this doesn't matter as I can > rebind names freely. I can still do: > > a=myfunc > myfunc=some other expression or object > > > It all depends on implementation, I think even we can make "C" object > > oriented with proper implementation. > > Indeed, any code based on gobject libraries can be object-oriented in > design and function.
But it's only a faking, and things such as inheritance and polymorphism are implemented clumsily (actually I'm not even sure about polymorphism). And of course, there are still no private members. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
