Andrew McDonagh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I haven't read all of this thread, I wonder, is the problem to do with > Class being mistaken for Type? (which is usually the issue)
Hi Andrew! Not much of this thread has to do with object oriented languages... so the word "class" would be a little out of place. However, it is true that the word "type" is being used in the dynamically typed sense to include classes from class-based OO languages (at least those that include run-time type features), as well as similar concepts in other languages. Some of us are asking for, and attempting to find, a formal definition to justify this concept, and are so far not finding it. Others are saying that the definition is somehow implicitly psychological in nature, and therefore not amenable to formal definition... which others (including myself) find rather unacceptable. I started out insisting that "type" be used with its correct formal definition, but I'm convinced that was a mistake. Asking someone to change their entire terminology is unlikely to succeed. I'm now focusing on just trying to represent the correct formal definition of types in the first place, and make it clear when one or the other meaning is being used. Hopefully, that's a fair summary of the thread to date. -- Chris Smith - Lead Software Developer / Technical Trainer MindIQ Corporation -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
