thmpsn....@gmail.com wrote:
>> To be clear, python does not force you to lay out your code according to
>> some strict object-oriented paradigm. But Python itself is still purely
>> object-oriented, as is your script when parsed.
>
> But it's only a faking, and things such as inheritance and
> polymorphism are implemented clumsily (actually I'm not even sure
> about polymorphism). And of course, there are still no private
> members.
How is it faking? The class of a function object is "function," which
is of the metaclass "type." What more do you want? If Guido himself
declared that functions are objects would you believe that? Or modules?
Since a function object is an instance of the class "function" I don't
see how you could inherit from it, and polymorphism has nothing to do
with this either. Maybe what you are talking about is deriving a class
from the class "function." Not sure if that's allowed, mainly because
the language has defined a standard way of declaring a function (methods
are functions too, of course), so creating a useful, derived function
object would be difficult given how the syntax of the language works.
Private members? I could stick add any attribute I wanted to a function
object and ask that people treat it as private if I wanted to:
def myfunc():
pass
myfunc.__dict__['_private'] = 4
If you are insinuating that not forcing private attributes to be
unaccessible by others (black box theory) is in somehow a violation of
object-oriented semantics, think again. It's not. (There are no formal
definitions of OO anyay, but wikipedia lists quite a few characteristics
considered common to OO, and enforced private members is not one of them.)
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
