On Sep 22, 1:15 pm, Marc 'BlackJack' Rintsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sat, 22 Sep 2007 02:44:35 -0700, Kay Schluehr wrote: > > I checked out Io once and I disliked it. I expected Io's prototype OO > > being just a more flexible variant of class based OO but Io couples a > > prototype very closely to its offspring. When A produces B and A.f is > > modified after production of B also B.f is modified. A controls the > > state of B during the whole lifetime of B. I think parents shall not > > do this, not in real life and also not in programming language > > semantics. > > Well it's like Python: inherited slots (attributes) are looked up in the > ancestors. It should be easy to override `Object clone` in Io, so all > slots of the ancestor are shallow copied to the clone, but I guess this > might break existing code. At least for your own code you could introduce > a `realClone` slot. > > Ciao, > Marc 'BlackJack' Rintsch
But in class based OO most relevant attributes are defined during object construction and they can't be simply changed by setting a class attribute. Later you often create new attributes as but on object level. You do not overuse the object/class relationship to broadcast changes to all objects. While you might override 'Object clone' I don't believe changing the way how the whole object model works is a good idea and since it happens on source level you will get also a performance hit. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
