In article <mailman.18196.1422406856.18130.python-l...@python.org>, ben+pyt...@benfinney.id.au says... > > Mario Figueiredo <mar...@gmail.com> writes: > > > It is true that a class object is an instance of 'type'. But this is a > > special type (can't avoid the pun). > > Nevertheless it is a class, and can do everything that classes do. > > And every class is an object, and can do everything that objects do. > > You seem to agree with those, so please stop claiming that classes are > not objects. Python classes are always objects, and always have been. > > > A class object is not an instance of the type it implements. > > You keep introducing hurdles that are irrelevant. Yes, a class is not an > instance of itself. That doesn't impact the fact a class is an object. > > > That is what I mean by an object that isn't an instance. > > That's incoherent. It's an instance of a class, and simultaneously is > not an instance? > > > In other words, the object know as "Sub class" is not an instance > > object. True, it is an instance of the object 'type'. > > You've tied yourself in knots with concepts that are not coherent, and > even if they were do not appear to be relevant to Python.
Very well. I'm failing at putting my point across. I will not discuss this further. -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list