Jonathan Bartlett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Mike Meyer wrote:
> > "Xah Lee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > So now we find out that Xah Lee is as ignorant of other programming
> > languages as he is of Python and Perl.
>
> I think you're misreading some of what is being said.
Given how clear Lee's writing is, that's certainly possible.
I note that, while you disagree with my interpretation of what Lee said,
you trimmed the text under discussion in *every* case. That sort of makes
the discussion moot. I don't care enough about the subject to dig out his
original quotes. I do stand by my interpretation of them as radically wrong,
which is par for the course for Lee. If you really want to discuss these,
please repost your comments, leaving Lee's text in place.
> > Function nesting and classes were viewed as independent
> > features. Some OO languages support nesting, others don't. I think
> > it was Grace Murray
> > Hopper commenting on Ada who said that "With classes, nesting is for the
> > birds."
> Doesn't this quote show the opposite?
I don't think so. I had originally written a comment to the effect that
early OO languages seemed to include it or not, with no apparent rhyme
or reason. The GMH quote was meant to show that nesting - or lack of it -
was pretty much irrelevant. I left out the intervening text.
My bad.
<mike
--
Mike Meyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.mired.org/home/mwm/
Independent WWW/Perforce/FreeBSD/Unix consultant, email for more information.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
