In article <mailman.2311.1277759128.32709.python-l...@python.org>, Michael Torrie <torr...@gmail.com> wrote: >On 06/28/2010 02:31 PM, Aahz wrote: >> In article <mailman.2300.1277754755.32709.python-l...@python.org>, >> Michael Torrie <torr...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> True. But you can't really criticize a language's implementation of OOP >>> without a good understanding of the "pure" OO language. For example, in >>> Smalltalk If/Then statements are actually methods of Boolean objects. >>> >From a certain point of view that's extremely appealing (consistent, >>> anyway). Almost functional in nature. They are not implemented this >>> way in Python, so that's one thing you could argue is not OO about Python. >> >> Python is in no way a pure OOP language. (I assume you're aware of this, >> but your phrasing leaves that in doubt.) > >My phrasing leaves that in doubt? How does my example of how Smalltalk >implements if/then vs how Pyton's implementation leave that in doubt? >The last sentence alone is very clear.
Actually, it's precisely the last sentence that creates doubt: by saying "one thing", it's easy for a careless reader to infer that otherwise you would think that Python is a pure OOP. <shrug> Not a big deal, just thought it deserved clarification. -- Aahz (a...@pythoncraft.com) <*> http://www.pythoncraft.com/ "If you don't know what your program is supposed to do, you'd better not start writing it." --Dijkstra -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
