Re: OO re-factoring (was Pythonese/Efficiency/Generalese critique [on Tutor])

[Lee Cullens]

Thanks for the comment Dan, Yes, that much I'm aware of.  I just thought I'd refactor my little utility in an OO approach as an exercise.  What I've learned so far is that my non-OO approach is in this situation very efficient, succinct and non-duplicative.  Except for avoiding multiple argument passing (globals not even considered ;') there seems little to be gained.  Even so, one learns best by doing and I'm gaining a better understanding of OOP (and where to apply such).  The oak trees are hard on this old head though :~) Thanks again, Lee C On Jun 8, 2005, at 11:40 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Subject: Re: OO re-factoring (was Pythonese/Efficiency/Generalese critique [on Tutor]) Dan Sommers wrote: I don't remember the original post, but methods and recursion are *not* mutually exclusive (e.g., an Integer class with a factorial method, or a binary tree class whose nodes are also binary trees). Also, don't think that you have to make everything OO. OO isn't necessarily better than non-OO. It's a means to an end, not an end in itself. --  Greg Ewing, Computer Science Dept, University of Canterbury,     Christchurch, New Zealand http://www.cosc.canterbury.ac.nz/~greg

-- 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list