In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Bruno Desthuilliers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Sandra-24 a écrit : >> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: >> >>>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, >>> "Sandra-24" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >>> >>>>Now that is a clever little trick. I never would have guessed you can >>>>assign to __class__, Python always surprises me in it's sheer >>>>flexibility. >>> >>>That's because you're still thinking in OO terms. >> >> It's not quite as simple as all that. I agree that people, escpecially >> people with a Java (ew) background overuse OO, when there's often >> simpler ways of doing things. > >Nope. I mean : they don't overuse OO, they overuse *classes*. AFAIK, OO >means *object* oriented - not class oriented. Oh great. Now we have someone redefining the concept of OO to evade the point I was making. >There are OO languages that don't even have a notion of class. Sounds like stuff I was doing in C (a non-OO language) years ago. Unless you want to count C as an OO language, I think you're going to have to retract this claim. >> However in this case I'm simply getting an object (an mp_request object >> from mod_python) passed into my function, and before I pass it on to >> the functions that make up and individual web page it is modified by >> adding members and methods to add functionality. > >Which is a well-known design pattern called "decorator". If you have to think of it as a design pattern, that means you haven't figured out the code reuse angle yet.
-- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
