On Tue, 10 Dec 2013 00:31:15 -0500, Roy Smith wrote: > In article <5f7e3e2f-2f86-4a2b-bea5-6e70b6fc2...@googlegroups.com>, > rusi <rustompm...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Tuesday, December 10, 2013 10:40:27 AM UTC+5:30, Steven D'Aprano >> wrote: >> > By the way, I'm curious. Why are discussions about object oriented >> > coding off-topic to Python? This is not a rhetorical question. >> >> Well OOP on the python list is certainly on topic. >> >> Interminable discussions about why redrawing the inheritance arrows the >> other way round will save the world is OT (for me!) > > What about whether the arrows should have solid heads, open heads, > barbed heads, double-barbed heads, or circles (filled or open)? Surely > you can't expect people to write decent programs when they can't even > draw the right kind of arrowhead?
You mock, and so you should, but I just thought I'd mention that there are standards for this sort of thing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unified_Modeling_Language According to UML the type of arrow head does make a difference. -- Steven -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list