On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 5:07 PM, Ian Kelly <ian.g.ke...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 4:38 PM, Mark Janssen <dreamingforw...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> The issue of classes cooperating isn't as big as it seems, because >> since you're working now from a useful, agreed-upon common base (the >> non-negotiable, but also non-arbitrary) machine types, you're now all >> (the python and ideally the *object* community) speaking the same >> language. Who's going to argue about integers (as the atomic type) >> and sets (as the most basic grouping type) being THE common set of >> bases for everything else? I mean, it doesn't get anymore ideal and >> pure than integers and sets. Combining integers with sets I can make >> a Rational class and have infinite-precision arithmetic, for example. > > I don't see how this solves anything. At some point you have to be > able to add methods and attributes to your objects. For example, your > Rational class is going to need some sort of "reduce" method to reduce > a Rational instance to lowest terms. That's not a method that belongs > on an integer or set type. If you can't add functionality, then all > you will ever have are integers and sets, and if you can add > functionality, then what difference does it make what your fundamental > base class is?
Oh, and just in case you're not aware, Python already has a Fraction class that supports unlimited-precision arithmetic. It doesn't need to inherit from tuple to accomplish this, and in fact that would be a bad way to approach it, since a fraction is *not* a tuple. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
