Chris Smith wrote: > Andrew McDonagh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I haven't read all of this thread, I wonder, is the problem to do with >> Class being mistaken for Type? (which is usually the issue) > > Hi Andrew!
Hi Chris > > Not much of this thread has to do with object oriented languages... so > the word "class" would be a little out of place. Glad to here. > However, it is true > that the word "type" is being used in the dynamically typed sense to > include classes from class-based OO languages (at least those that > include run-time type features), as well as similar concepts in other > languages. Some of us are asking for, and attempting to find, a formal > definition to justify this concept, and are so far not finding it. > Others are saying that the definition is somehow implicitly > psychological in nature, and therefore not amenable to formal > definition... which others (including myself) find rather unacceptable. > > I started out insisting that "type" be used with its correct formal > definition, but I'm convinced that was a mistake. Asking someone to > change their entire terminology is unlikely to succeed. I'm now > focusing on just trying to represent the correct formal definition of > types in the first place, and make it clear when one or the other > meaning is being used. > > Hopefully, that's a fair summary of the thread to date. > Cheers much appreciated! Andrew -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
