On 1/17/2014 7:25 AM, Jean-Michel Pichavant wrote:
'''The default top superclass for all Python classes.
http://bugs.python.org/issue20285
The issue is tagged 2.7. Is object the superclass of all classes in 2.7 ?
2.7 should say 'all new-style classes'.
Thanks for noticing and reporting.
- Original Message -
> On 17/01/2014 01:00, Terry Reedy wrote:
> > On 12/6/2013 8:35 PM, Terry Reedy wrote:
> >> On 12/6/2013 12:03 PM, Mark Lawrence wrote:
> >>> Is it just me, or is this basically useless?
> >>>
> >>> >>> help(object)
> >>> Help on class object in module builtins:
> >>>
On 17/01/2014 01:00, Terry Reedy wrote:
On 12/6/2013 8:35 PM, Terry Reedy wrote:
On 12/6/2013 12:03 PM, Mark Lawrence wrote:
Is it just me, or is this basically useless?
>>> help(object)
Help on class object in module builtins:
class object
| The most base type
Given that this can be in
On 12/6/2013 8:35 PM, Terry Reedy wrote:
On 12/6/2013 12:03 PM, Mark Lawrence wrote:
Is it just me, or is this basically useless?
>>> help(object)
Help on class object in module builtins:
class object
| The most base type
Given that this can be interpreted as 'least desirable', it could
On 10/12/2013 7:37 PM, Mark Lawrence wrote:
One of the great joys of reading this list is how wonderfully OT it can
get. I have the right to make this statement as I started *THIS*
thread. Now what *WERE* we talking about? :)
The God Object (or Higgs Object for the non-theists).
--
https://m
On Tuesday, December 10, 2013 3:07:36 PM UTC+5:30, Mark Lawrence wrote:
> On 10/12/2013 05:16, rusi wrote:
> > On Tuesday, December 10, 2013 10:40:27 AM UTC+5:30, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> >> By the way, I'm curious. Why are discussions about object oriented coding
> >> off-topic to Python? This is
On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 8:19 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> While I'm very confident at this point that he is a crank, in the same
> category as circle-squarers, cold fusion proponents, pi-is-a-rational-
> number theorists, perpetual motion machine inventors, evolution or AGW
> Denialists[1], and oth
On 10/12/2013 05:16, rusi wrote:
On Tuesday, December 10, 2013 10:40:27 AM UTC+5:30, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
By the way, I'm curious. Why are discussions about object oriented coding
off-topic to Python? This is not a rhetorical question.
Well OOP on the python list is certainly on topic.
Inte
In article <52a6af26$0$2829$c3e8da3$76491...@news.astraweb.com>,
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> > What about whether the arrows should have solid heads, open heads,
> > barbed heads, double-barbed heads, or circles (filled or open)? Surely
> > you can't expect people to write decent programs when th
On Tue, 10 Dec 2013 00:31:15 -0500, Roy Smith wrote:
> In article <5f7e3e2f-2f86-4a2b-bea5-6e70b6fc2...@googlegroups.com>,
> rusi wrote:
>
>> On Tuesday, December 10, 2013 10:40:27 AM UTC+5:30, Steven D'Aprano
>> wrote:
>> > By the way, I'm curious. Why are discussions about object oriented
>>
On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 4:27 PM, Alan Bawden
wrote:
> Chris Angelico writes:
>
>> On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 6:31 PM, Alan Bawden
>> ...
>> How does that work, exactly? How do you have a class inherit
>> (ultimately) from itself, and how does that impact the component class
>> list?
>
> How does it w
In article <5f7e3e2f-2f86-4a2b-bea5-6e70b6fc2...@googlegroups.com>,
rusi wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 10, 2013 10:40:27 AM UTC+5:30, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> > By the way, I'm curious. Why are discussions about object oriented coding
> > off-topic to Python? This is not a rhetorical question.
Chris Angelico writes:
> How does that work, exactly? How do you have a class inherit
> (ultimately) from itself, and how does that impact the component class
> list?
How does it work "exactly"? You're asking me about a feature I never
made use of, in a system I have no source for, and that I ha
On Tuesday, December 10, 2013 10:40:27 AM UTC+5:30, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> By the way, I'm curious. Why are discussions about object oriented coding
> off-topic to Python? This is not a rhetorical question.
Well OOP on the python list is certainly on topic.
Interminable discussions about why r
On Mon, 09 Dec 2013 20:32:06 -0800, rusi wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 10, 2013 8:49:46 AM UTC+5:30, Steven D'Aprano
> wrote:
>> On Mon, 09 Dec 2013 05:59:29 -0500, Ned Batchelder wrote:
>
>> [...]
>> > And the cycle continues:
>> [...]
>
>> > Maybe we could just not?
>
> Thanks Ned for your at
On Tuesday, December 10, 2013 8:49:46 AM UTC+5:30, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Mon, 09 Dec 2013 05:59:29 -0500, Ned Batchelder wrote:
> [...]
> > And the cycle continues:
> [...]
> > Maybe we could just not?
Thanks Ned for your attempts at bringing some order and sense in these parts
of the univ
On Mon, 09 Dec 2013 05:59:29 -0500, Ned Batchelder wrote:
[...]
> And the cycle continues:
[...]
> Maybe we could just not?
A reasonable request, but just because it's reasonable doesn't mean it is
a no-brainer that we shouldn't engage with Mark.
While I'm very confident at this point that he
On 09/12/2013 05:00, Terry Reedy wrote:
I think it can be. If you prefer me to open the issue, say so.
We should look for existing issues, and closed issues that rejected change.
Thanks for the offer Terry and yes, please open an issue.
--
My fellow Pythonistas, ask not what our language can
On 09/12/2013 10:12, Ian Kelly wrote:
On Sun, Dec 8, 2013 at 4:01 PM, Mark Janssen wrote:
Likewise, WITH A COMPUTER, there is a definite order which can't be
countermanded by simply having this artifice called "Object". If you
FEE(L)s hadn't noticed (no longer using the insult "foo"s out of
re
On 12/9/13 12:11 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Sun, 08 Dec 2013 15:01:59 -0800, Mark Janssen wrote:
On Sun, Dec 8, 2013 at 2:33 AM, Steven D'Aprano
wrote:
On Sat, 07 Dec 2013 20:21:06 -0800, Mark Janssen wrote:
Is it just me, or is this basically useless?
class object
| The most *base*
On Sun, Dec 8, 2013 at 4:01 PM, Mark Janssen wrote:
> Likewise, WITH A COMPUTER, there is a definite order which can't be
> countermanded by simply having this artifice called "Object". If you
> FEE(L)s hadn't noticed (no longer using the insult "foo"s out of
> respect for the sensativities of th
On 09/12/2013 06:44, rusi wrote:
On Monday, December 9, 2013 10:56:28 AM UTC+5:30, ru...@yahoo.com wrote:
On 12/08/2013 09:46 PM, rusi wrote:
On Monday, December 9, 2013 9:46:30 AM UTC+5:30, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Sun, 08 Dec 2013 18:58:09 -0800, rusi wrote:
[...]
Does GG not give you som
On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 6:31 PM, Alan Bawden
wrote:
> I don't believe that this was done for any deep principled reason, but
> rather it was just permitted because the algorithm for computing method
> resolution order didn't actually care whether there were inheritance
> cycles -- it still terminat
Steven D'Aprano writes:
> - If all classes are part of a single hierarchy, it must logically end at
> one (or more, if you support multiple inheritance, which Python does)
> bases classes. (Unless there are loops, which are generally prohibited in
> all OOP systems I know of). The simplest way
On Monday, December 9, 2013 10:56:28 AM UTC+5:30, ru...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On 12/08/2013 09:46 PM, rusi wrote:
> > On Monday, December 9, 2013 9:46:30 AM UTC+5:30, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> >> On Sun, 08 Dec 2013 18:58:09 -0800, rusi wrote:
> >[...]
> >> Does GG not give you some way of inspecting t
On Sun, 08 Dec 2013 18:41:47 -0800, Mark Janssen wrote:
>>> What methods, if any does it provide? Are they all abstract? etc???
>>
>> Pretty much nothing useful :-)
>>
>> py> dir(object)
>> [...]
>>
>>
> So (prodding the student), Why does everything inherit from Object if it
> provides no functi
On 12/08/2013 09:46 PM, rusi wrote:
> On Monday, December 9, 2013 9:46:30 AM UTC+5:30, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>> On Sun, 08 Dec 2013 18:58:09 -0800, rusi wrote:
>[...]
>> Does GG not give you some way of inspecting the post's full headers?
>
> Well I spent half hour looking around -- both inside G
On Sun, 08 Dec 2013 15:01:59 -0800, Mark Janssen wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 8, 2013 at 2:33 AM, Steven D'Aprano
> wrote:
>> On Sat, 07 Dec 2013 20:21:06 -0800, Mark Janssen wrote:
>>
>> Is it just me, or is this basically useless?
>>
>> class object
>> | The most *base* type
>
>>>
On 12/8/2013 8:43 PM, Mark Lawrence wrote:
On 09/12/2013 00:45, Denis McMahon wrote:
On Sun, 08 Dec 2013 23:48:57 +, Mark Lawrence wrote:
>>> help(object)
Help on class object in module builtins:
class object
| The most base type
'''The default top superclass for all Python clas
Thanks for the info.
On Monday, December 9, 2013 9:46:30 AM UTC+5:30, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Sun, 08 Dec 2013 18:58:09 -0800, rusi wrote:
> > PS Can some kind soul inform me whether I could convince GG to unicode
> > my post?
> Does GG not give you some way of inspecting the post's full hea
On Sun, 08 Dec 2013 18:58:09 -0800, rusi wrote:
> PS Can some kind soul inform me whether I could convince GG to unicode
> my post?
Does GG not give you some way of inspecting the post's full headers?
Anyway, here you go:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Your plan succeeded.
Personal
On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 2:05 PM, Mark Janssen wrote:
> But, in any case, if you don't have a way to map your abstract objects
> into machine types, you're working on magic, not computer science.
Maybe, but that mapping isn't always an inheritance relationship.
Ultimately the computer can't work wi
On Sun, Dec 8, 2013 at 6:44 PM, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 10:01 AM, Mark Janssen
> wrote:
>> (Note bene: as a comparison, C++ is very UNAMBIGUOUS about
>> this fact -- all objects inherit from concrete machine types, which is
>> why it remains important, *despite* being one
On Monday, December 9, 2013 8:11:47 AM UTC+5:30, zipher wrote:
> >> What methods, if any does it provide? Are they all abstract? etc???
> > Pretty much nothing useful :-)
> > py> dir(object)
> > [...]
> So (prodding the student), Why does everything inherit from Object if
> it provides no functio
On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 1:41 PM, Mark Janssen wrote:
>>> What methods, if any does it provide? Are they all abstract? etc???
>>
>> Pretty much nothing useful :-)
>>
>> py> dir(object)
>> [...]
>>
>
> So (prodding the student), Why does everything inherit from Object if
> it provides no functionali
On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 10:01 AM, Mark Janssen wrote:
> (Note bene: as a comparison, C++ is very UNAMBIGUOUS about
> this fact -- all objects inherit from concrete machine types, which is
> why it remains important, *despite* being one of the worst to do OOP
> in. Its *type model* is probably the
>> What methods, if any does it provide? Are they all abstract? etc???
>
> Pretty much nothing useful :-)
>
> py> dir(object)
> [...]
>
So (prodding the student), Why does everything inherit from Object if
it provides no functionality?
Practicality-beats-purity-yours?
--
MarkJ
Tacoma, Washingt
On Mon, 09 Dec 2013 01:43:43 +, Mark Lawrence wrote about object:
> What methods, if any does it provide? Are they all abstract? etc???
Pretty much nothing useful :-)
py> dir(object)
['__class__', '__delattr__', '__dir__', '__doc__', '__eq__',
'__format__', '__ge__', '__getattribute__', '
On Sun, 08 Dec 2013 23:48:57 +, Mark Lawrence wrote:
> Terry's suggestion above remains odds on favourite on the grounds that
> there have been no other suggestions. I'll give it another day, then
> raise a tracker issue,
It's not merely the default superclass, it *is* the superclass to
e
On 09/12/2013 00:45, Denis McMahon wrote:
On Sun, 08 Dec 2013 23:48:57 +, Mark Lawrence wrote:
>>> help(object)
Help on class object in module builtins:
class object
| The most base type
'''The default top superclass for all Python classes.
Its methods are inherited by all classe
On 09/12/2013 01:09, Mark Janssen wrote:
>>> help(object)
Help on class object in module builtins:
class object
| The most base type
'''The default top superclass for all Python classes.
Its methods are inherited by all classes unless overriden.
'''
""" The root class for all Python c
>>> help(object)
Help on class object in module builtins:
class object
| The most base type
>
>>> '''The default top superclass for all Python classes.
>>> Its methods are inherited by all classes unless overriden.
>>> '''
>
> """ The root class for all Python classes.
On Sun, 08 Dec 2013 23:48:57 +, Mark Lawrence wrote:
>>> >>> help(object)
>>> Help on class object in module builtins:
>>>
>>> class object
>>> | The most base type
>> '''The default top superclass for all Python classes.
>> Its methods are inherited by all classes unless overriden.
>>
On 07/12/2013 01:35, Terry Reedy wrote:
On 12/6/2013 12:03 PM, Mark Lawrence wrote:
Is it just me, or is this basically useless?
>>> help(object)
Help on class object in module builtins:
class object
| The most base type
Given that this can be interpreted as 'least desirable', it could
d
Mark Janssen wrote:
Mr. Ewing says "base" has to be interpreted as an *adjective* because
otherwise it would mean the BOTTOM (like the BASE of the pyramid),
Not exactly -- a native English speaker would say something
like "the bottommost class" if that's what they meant.
Or they would say "the
On Sun, Dec 8, 2013 at 2:33 AM, Steven D'Aprano
wrote:
> On Sat, 07 Dec 2013 20:21:06 -0800, Mark Janssen wrote:
>
> Is it just me, or is this basically useless?
>
> class object
> | The most *base* type
>> [[Terry Reedy:]]
>>> How about something like.
>>> The default top *
On 12/7/13 11:21 PM, Mark Janssen wrote:
Is it just me, or is this basically useless?
class object
| The most *base* type
[[Terry Reedy:]]
How about something like.
The default top *superclass* for all Python classes.
How 'bout you foos just admit that you didn't realize you've been
con
On Sat, 07 Dec 2013 20:21:06 -0800, Mark Janssen wrote:
Is it just me, or is this basically useless?
class object
| The most *base* type
>>>
> [[Terry Reedy:]]
>> How about something like.
>> The default top *superclass* for all Python classes.
>
> How 'bout you foos just ad
On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 9:03 AM, Mark Lawrence wrote:
> Is it just me, or is this basically useless?
>
help(object)
> Help on class object in module builtins:
>
> class object
> | The most base type
>
>
> Surely a few more words, or a pointer to this
> http://docs.python.org/3/library/f
>>> Is it just me, or is this basically useless?
>>>
>>> class object
>>> | The most *base* type
>>
[[Terry Reedy:]]
> How about something like.
> The default top *superclass* for all Python classes.
How 'bout you foos just admit that you didn't realize you've been
confused this whole time? (It
On 12/7/13 7:10 PM, Gregory Ewing wrote:
Mark Lawrence wrote:
Is it just me, or is this basically useless?
class object
| The most base type
It's also a somewhat strange construction from an English language
point of view. To make sense, it requires interpreting the word
"base" as an adject
Mark Lawrence wrote:
Is it just me, or is this basically useless?
class object
| The most base type
It's also a somewhat strange construction from an English language
point of view. To make sense, it requires interpreting the word
"base" as an adjective, and when used that way it has connota
On 12/6/2013 12:03 PM, Mark Lawrence wrote:
Is it just me, or is this basically useless?
>>> help(object)
Help on class object in module builtins:
class object
| The most base type
Given that this can be interpreted as 'least desirable', it could
definitely be improved.
Surely a few m
Is it just me, or is this basically useless?
>>> help(object)
Help on class object in module builtins:
class object
| The most base type
>>>
Surely a few more words, or a pointer to this
http://docs.python.org/3/library/functions.html#object, would be better?
--
My fellow Pythonistas, ask
54 matches
Mail list logo
