On 02/06/2015 04:15, Rustom Mody wrote:
Two unrelated points:
On Tuesday, June 2, 2015 at 5:54:43 AM UTC+5:30, TheDoctor wrote:
On Monday, June 1, 2015 at 7:03:49 AM UTC-5, Eddilbert Macharia wrote:
I think i kind of understand now.
Instead of python having data types like int, string, e.t.c it has two
primitive types which are class type and class object which are created by
python interpreter during its setup .using this two classes python is able to
create some more data types
Eddibert, don't let this crowd (Terry, Stephen, et al.) confuse you. They are
as confused about it as you are.
The truth is, that they've told a lie to themselves (everything is an object) to hide some details
FROM THEMSELVES in their model. They climb a ladder of ambiguity anytime there's a new problem in
their model and call it a "type", or they pull out the "metaclass" term
(because no one really knows that that is, so they feel *pretty* safe).
A type is not an object in the same way an instantiated type is an object --
anymore than a blueprint for a building is the building itself.
Point 1
Yes. You may be onto something here Mark [I assume that's your name].
Some very intelligent people have suggested that the sloppy use of 'is'
causes more misunderstanding than any useful communication.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-Prime.
I thought it was our pot smoking hippy back under another name. he
seems to have more lives than a black cat and a phoenix combined.
--
My fellow Pythonistas, ask not what our language can do for you, ask
what you can do for our language.
Mark Lawrence
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
