On Friday, September 13, 2013 at 12:08:04 AM UTC-5, Steven D'Aprano wrote: > On Thu, 12 Sep 2013 20:23:21 -0700, Mark Janssen wrote: > which would be silly. Only somebody who doesn't understand how > inheritance works in Python would do that. There's simply no need for it, > and in fact it would be actively harmful for larger hierarchies. > > >>> But wait is it the "base" (at the bottom of the hierarchy) or is it > >>> the "parent" at the top? You see, you, like everyone else has been > >>> using these terms loosely, confusing yourself. > >> > >> Depends on whether I'm standing on my head or not. > >> > >> Or more importantly, it depends on whether I visualise my hierarchy > >> going top->down or bottom->up. Both are relevant, and both end up with > >> the *exact same hierarchy* with only the direction reversed. > > > > Ha, "only the direction reversed". That little directionality that > > you're passing by so blithely is the difference between whether you're > > talking about galaxies or atoms. > > It makes no difference whether I write: > > atoms -> stars -> galaxies > > or > > galaxies <- stars <- atoms > > nor does it make any difference if I write the chain starting at the top > and pointing down, or at the bottom and pointing up.
Yes it does. Ford IS-A Car, but Car IS-A Ford? No. Try reordering that one. I see we've missed each other with our limitations to ASCII text, in ways that would have never happened had these conversations occurred in person. Re-reading my texts, I see that I can easily confuse myself. > "not someone wanting to understand the limitations of python..." -- are > you aware that I started this thread? Yes, but did you? LOL. Mark -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
