On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 11:19 AM, Marko Rauhamaa <ma...@pacujo.net> wrote: > Steven D'Aprano <st...@pearwood.info>: > >> On Fri, 29 May 2015 12:00 pm, Steven D'Aprano wrote: >> >> [...] >>> in a language where classes are >>> themselves values, there is no reason why a class must be instantiated, >>> particularly if you're only using a single instance of the class. Anyone >>> ever come across a named design pattern that involves using classes >>> directly without instantiating them? >>> >>> I'm basically looking for a less inelegant term for "instanceless class" >>> -- not so much a singleton as a zeroton. >> >> C# has these, and calls them static classes. > > I guess Python has them, too, and calls them modules.
Indeed. I find it amusing that C# has special syntax to work around what is ostensibly a design feature -- that all code must be contained in a class (or struct). But then, the same practice also exists in Java, where there is no specific syntax for it. -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list