bruno at modulix wrote:
> Mr.Rech wrote:
> > All in all it seems that the implementation that uses isinstance() is
> > better in this case...
>
> You could also use something like Zope's Interfaces... But I'm not sure
> it's worth the extra complexity.
T
After reading all your comments and thinking a little to my specific
case, I think it is definetively better to go with the "isinstance()"
implementation. My objects represent mathematical function defined over
a numerical grid, and I hardly think of an unrelated class objects that
could be compare
All in all it seems that the implementation that uses isinstance() is
better in this case...
Thanks for your comments,
Andrea.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Mmm... I've not considered such an event... Would you say it is one of
those rare case in which isinstance() "can be used"? Any other
suggestion?
Thanks,
Andrea
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Hi all,
I've read some thread about isinstance(), why it is considered harmful
and how you can achieve the same results using a coding style that
doesn't break polymorphism etc... Since I'm trying to improve my Python
knowledge, and I'm going to design a class hierarchy from scratch, I'd
like to ha
I would have sworn that it had been a better way to get it.
Thanks a lot,
Andrea
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Hi all,
I was writing a simple class when I get a strange error message that I
can't
understand. Hopefully someone could help me here.
My class's init method takes a list of lists as input argument and I'd
like to create
several attributes each one referencing one item of the passed list.
Easy-of-
Thanks for your answer. Since perfomances are not an issue in my case I
think I'd stay with copy.copy(). In this way I'm not required to know
in advance the object type, and I can implement a __deepcopy__ method
for my own classes as follows:
>>> def __deepcopy__(self, memo = {}):
new
Hi all,
I'm writing a class with some attributes which deepcopy can't cope
with, and I need some more clarifications. Sorry for my newbie
questions, but I'm a newbie indeed (or a sort of).
Suppose one of the attributes of my class is a dictionary whose values
are callable functions, such as:
>>>d
I see your point. Looking again at my metaclass implementation and
comparing it with your abstract class + inheritance approach it turns
out that the latter is definetively more straightforward, easier to
maintain and all in all more pythonic.
Sorry, but being an OOP newbie put me in the position
Thanks for your suggestions. They are very usefull and indeed bypass my
problem. However, I've found a (perhaps) more elegant way to get the
same result using metaclasses. My idea is to define my classes as
follows:
>>> class meta_A(type):
def __new__(cls, classname, bases, classdict):
Hi all,
I've been using Python for 3 years, but I've rarely used its OOP
features (I'm a physicist, sorry). Now, after having read a lot about
Python OOP capabilities, I'm trying to get advantage of this (for me)
new paradigm. As a result I've a lot of somewhat philosophical
questions. I will start
12 matches
Mail list logo
