On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 9:26 PM, Mark Janssen <dreamingforw...@gmail.com> wrote: > Continuing on this thread, there would be a new bunch of behaviors to > be defined. Since "everything is an object", there can now be a > standard way to define the *next* common abstraction of "every object > interacts with other objects". And going with my suggestion of > defining >> and << operators, I'm going to explore the concept > further.... > Each object has to figure out how it will receive things from outside > of it. Things it can't handle (a string sent to an int) just have to > be dropped to some other space, much like stderr does within the O.S.
I guess here's the idea I'm getting at. As a programming language paradigm, OOP has to evolve -- it still has too much dependency on number-crunching and the mathematical operators still dominate. But a better abstraction to wrap the OOP paradigm around is *message-passing* rather than *arithmetic*. And having in/out operators on objects is just *way cool*. mark -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list