Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> 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.
"redefining" ? lol...
>
>>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.
I think I'm not going to retract anything. And I think you should learn
a bit more about prototype-based languages.
>
>>>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.
Please stop saying non-sense and learn the difference between design and
implementation.
--
bruno desthuilliers
python -c "print '@'.join(['.'.join([w[::-1] for w in p.split('.')]) for
p in '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'.split('@')])"
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
