On 2018-09-06 12:32, Stefan Ram wrote: > "Michael F. Stemper" <michael.stem...@gmail.com> writes: >> Is there really any benefit to this change? Yes, I've eliminated >> some (a few lines per class) duplicate code. On the other hand, >> I've added the parent class and the (probably small, but not >> non-existent) overhead of invoking super(). > > You have a operation »Resistance( V )«.
Mathematically, that's an operation, I suppose. I tend to think of it as either a function or a method. > OOP is advantageous if you can anticipate that you will want > to extend operations for other types. Since the way that each operation (aside from __init__) differs from one load type to the next, is there really an advantage? > I.e., if you anticipate a new type »ConstantVoltage«, you Actually, although the possibility of other load models exists, ConstantVoltage() would be impossible, since these models are all defined based on the behavior of the load *in response to a change in voltage*. But your point is well-taken, which is part of why I considered doing inheritance. > can add an operation »Resistance( V )« for this new type > without changing the existing definitions (open-closed > principle). > > Non-OOP is advantageous if you can anticipate that you will > want to add new operations for the existing types. > > (Non-OOP means in this case that you have a single > definition of a function »Resistance( entity, V )« which > contains an internal multiple branch on the type of the > entity.) To be honest, that sounds painful and hard to maintain. Of course, back in my F77 days, it would have been the only option. Thanks for your time. -- Michael F. Stemper Why doesn't anybody care about apathy? -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
