Op 2005-11-03, Stefan Arentz schreef <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Antoon Pardon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> Op 2005-11-03, Stefan Arentz schreef <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> > Antoon Pardon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> > >> > ... >> > >> >> Fine, we have the code: >> >> >> >> b.a += 2 >> >> >> >> We found the class variable, because there is no instance variable, >> >> then why is the class variable not incremented by two now? >> > >> > Because it really is executed as: >> > >> > b.a = b.a + 2 >> >> That is an explanation, not a reason. > > I'm just following the > >> > 1. get 't'b.a and store it in a temporary 't' (found the instance) >> > 2. add 2 to 't' >> > 3. store 't' in 'b.a' >> > >> > The last operation stores it into an instance variable. >> >> [ I think you mean '(found the class variable)' in line 1 ] >> >> All you are doing here is explain how the current implemantation treats >> this. You are not giving arguments for why the result of this >> implementation should be considered sane behaviour. > > Ah yes. Well, good luck with that. You seem to have decided that it is not > sane and who am I to argue with that. It depends on your state of mind :-)
I can just say the opposite, that you seem to have decided that it is sane. > The model makes sense in my opinion. If you don't like it then there are > plenty of other languages to choose from that have decided to implement > things differently. And again this argument. Like it or leave it, as if one can't in general like the language, without being blind for a number of shortcomings. It is this kind of recations that make me think a number of people is blindly devoted to the language to the point that any criticism of the language becomes intollerable. -- Antoon Pardon -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
