So, by introducing this collaboration mechanism with a syntax that defines it as sending and receiving things that are *not* arbitrary objects, the language would naturally reinforce a more thoroughly decoupled architecture?
Sent from my iPad On Mar 17, 2013, at 8:53 PM, Mark Janssen <dreamingforw...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hello, > > I just posted an answers on quora.com about OOP (http://qr.ae/TM1Vb) > and wanted to engage the python community on the subject. > > Alan Kay's idea of message-passing in Smalltalk are interesting, and > like the questioner says, never took off. My answer was that Alan > Kay's abstraction of "Everything is an object" fails because you can't > have message-passing, an I/O task, working in the same space as your > objects -- they are two very different functionalities and they have > to be preserved **for the programmer**. > > This functional separation made me think that Python could benefit > from a syntactical, language-given separation between Classes and the > messages between them, to encourage loosely-coupled, modular OOP. > Something that OOP has always promised but never delivered. > > I think we should co-opt C++'s poorly used >> and << I/O operators > (for files) and re-purpose them for objects/classes. One could then > have within interpreter space, the ability to pass in a message to an > object. > >>>> 42 >> MyObject #sends 42 as a message into MyObject > > The Object definition would then have special methods __in__ to > receive data and a special way of outputing data that can be caught > __str__(?). > > I'm hoping the community can comment on the matter.... > > Thanks, > > Mark > Tacoma, Washington > _______________________________________________ > Python-ideas mailing list > python-id...@python.org > http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
