On Thursday, October 17, 2013 6:09:59 PM UTC+5:30, rusi wrote: > On Thursday, October 17, 2013 12:19:02 PM UTC+5:30, Peter Cacioppi wrote: > > > Object oriented programming takes things further, most significantly by > introducing the idea that the object reference you are referencing might be a > run time dependent sub-class. Even Python, which isn't strongly typed, > manages polymorphism by allowing the self argument to a sub-class of the > method class. > > > Yes and the reference I earlier gave was just for that: > http://lwn.net/Articles/444910/ > > Ironically he describes the whole 'polymorphism-in-C' infrastructure there > but does not call it that. > > The first line however in the sequel article http://lwn.net/Articles/446317/ > does just that. Heres the quote:
I would be a bit remiss if I left it at that -- yeah Mark is clueless about his history and philosophy. However the general usage of the word polymorphism in the OOP community is not much better. Cardelli and Wegner: http://lucacardelli.name/Papers/OnUnderstanding.A4.pdf give a conspectus of the field. Especially section 1.3 shows that the word can mean one of 4 very different and unrelated ideas. OOP aficionados think one of them to be the only one. -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
