On 22/08/12 18:01, Terry Reedy wrote:
On 8/22/2012 10:59 AM, lipska the kat wrote:
There is no real enforced concept of information hiding, no binding of
type to variable in fact no concept of typing at all as far as I can
see.
Given that type(valid_name) always returns a type(class), that is a
slightly strange statement.
[snip]
Well I'm a beginner so I'm allowed to make strange statements.
However I don't think it's that strange and here's why.
If, in a language, I find I am able to say
a = 1
then later, in the same scope I can say
a = "foo"
then later again in the same scope I can say
a = ([1,2,3], "xyz", True)
then, and I may be missing something here, to me, that doesn't say
'strongly typed' that says 'no typing constraints whatsoever'
If you can show me a 'type' that cannot be assigned to
a
in the same scope then I would be most interested to know, I haven't
found one yet.
We need to separate out the 'view' from the 'implementation' here.
Most developers I know, if looking at the code and without the possibly
dubious benefit of knowing that in Python 'everything is an object'
would not call this 'strong typing'
Once again, this is not a criticism, it's an observation
It is OK to to make (possibly erroneous) observations isn't it?
Thanks for taking the time to reply.
lipska
--
Lipska the Kat©: Troll hunter, sandbox destroyer
and farscape dreamer of Aeryn Sun
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
