On 07/04/2016 01:37 PM, Chris Angelico wrote:
On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 9:23 PM, jmp <jeanmic...@sequans.com> wrote:
On 07/01/2016 04:13 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
But classes are not like the others: they must be instantiated before they
can be used, and they are more than just a mere namespace grouping related
entities. Classes support inheritance. Classes should be used for "is-a"
relationships, not "has-a" relationships. Although classes (and instances)
are namespaces, they provide fundamentally different kind of behaviour
than
modules and packages.
A namespace would not hurt but I really don't get why you don't consider
classes a valid and rather helpful namespace.
1/ classes do not have to be instantiated.
2/ the fact that classes are more than a namespace is not an argument.
Almost any object in python is able to do more than what you are actually
using.
3/ Classes are used as much as 'is-a' than 'has-a', class instances *have* a
state usually described by attributes
4/ "Although classes (and instances) are namespaces, ". You seem to
contradict yourself. It was probably a rhetorical construct but it's rather
confusing.
Functions within the namespace can't call other functions within the
same namespace using unqualified names. This was a stated requirement.
ChrisA
Ho, I missed that one.
But if it's the only missing requirement, wouldn't be like stating that
python instances are not instances because methods cannot call other
methods without "self."ed qualified name ? We like explicit qualified
stuff in python right ? ("explicit is better than implicit")
jm
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
