On 22/08/2012 18:46, lipska the kat wrote:
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.
You've said nothing above except that any object you like can be bound
to a Python name. The name 'a' is never used. What happens when you
actually do something with the object that you've bound to 'a'?
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'
I really despair that after ten years of using Python people still seem
to be incapable of distinguishing strong, static, weak and dynamic
typing. Not that it's a specific Python problem of course, just that I
always get to read about it here.
Once again, this is not a criticism, it's an observation
It is OK to to make (possibly erroneous) observations isn't it?
Not if undoes concepts that computer scientists have patiently been
trying to explain for years.
Thanks for taking the time to reply.
lipska
--
Cheers.
Mark Lawrence.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
