Op 2005-03-16, Jeff Shannon schreef <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Bruno Desthuilliers wrote:
>
>> A few examples:
> [...]
>> - to get the length of a sequence, you use len(seq) instead of seq.len()
>> - to call objects attributes by name, you use [get|set]attr(obj, name
>> [,value]) instead of obj.[get|set]attr(name [,value])
>
> These are both very consistent applications of a more functional style
> of programming, rather than the pure object-oriented style you seem to
> desire. It's not that Python is inconsistent; it's that Python is
> consistently blending multiple paradigms in a way that uses the best
> features of each and (mostly) avoids the worst pitfalls of each.
>
>> - if x is a class attribute of class A and a is an instance of A,
>> a.x=anyvalue create a new instance attribute x instead of modifying A.x
>
> This is very consistent with the way that binding a name in any scope
> will shadow any bindings of that name in "higher" scopes. It is the
> same principle by which one is able to use the same name for a
> function-local variable that is used for a global variable, without
> destroying that global variable. Doing as you suggest would be far
> *less* consistent, and would create a special case for class/instance
> lookups where there is none now.
>
Not entirely. The equivallent is imposible in function scope.
If function scope would work exactly equivallent as the
above the following should work
a = 42
def f():
a = a + 1
print a
print a
And the result should be:
43
42
--
Antoon Pardon
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
