Chris Angelico <ros...@gmail.com> writes: [...]
>> not disagreeing... and yeah I could have thought deeper about the >> answer, but I still think "notthing has been OOP" -> "yes it has, they >> just didn't realize it" was worth mentioning > > Oh yes, absolutely agree. At the same time, inside the machine nothing is OOP --- so all the OOP is no OOP at all and they just didn't realize it? This seems to show that OOP is about perspective. An essential thing for OOP is the keeping of states. Closures can keep state, so having procedures as first-class values allows us to say we are doing OOP too. (Arguments of procedures are messages and function application is message passing, with closures keeping a state --- and all the rest of OOP can be implemented with enough such functional technology.) In summary, OOP should not be defined as some special syntax, otherwise there is no OOP in ``2 + 2''. Having said that, I totally agree with all the nitpicking. -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
