Fair enough. Though one can make the argument that modules already provide this first level of encapsulation i.e. wrapping in a "class" for oganizational purposes.
Especially since modules can also be wrapped behind a namespace. This one could call a module any "class" they want, and access those functions as if they were member functions of a class. I think while learning OO is a positive endeavor that I was kind of scratching my head on how this was a good method of learning what it really means; syntax is just syntax. By no means do I discourage any transfer from MEL to python+pymel. =) Cheers. On Jul 28, 12:21 pm, Justin <[email protected]> wrote: > I completely agree with Alexander in that this exact code didn't need > to be a class. it doesn't really have an internal state or do anything > that really needs initialization. > BUT, I do recognize that what the OP is trying to do is learn the > language, so providing him with an example of his code in class-form > does help him and move him forward. Now that he sees the syntax, he > can start to investigate why it would or would not benefit from being > a class. As you can see, he only has two functions, and one of them > its basically just a static method. > > Being someone that write python code in maya on a daily basis for over > 2.5 years, I will say this. I write all my scripts as class structures > for organizational purposes. It happens frequently that I want my > scripts to have options for the way they will be executed, and it > makes having a library of script a lot easier, when I want to use one > as a library component of another script. Its pretty rare that my > tools will only be composed of two functions. But its quite MEL-like > to have all functions and the exported ones are global. In MEL you > aren't saving state, you are just passing around arguments. > > When I started learning python over 5 years ago, the friend who was > giving me advice at the time suggested that its pretty much always > cleaner to write your programs as a class. If they really are just > some utility operations they can be functions. > > On Jul 28, 8:21 am, Alexander Morano <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > I think I am failing to understand why this had/has to be a class? Top- > > down, functional programming ain't dead =) > > > There is nothing more than another layer of encapsulation on this now, > > but no exposed functionality to it. > > > And I did LOL (sorry) that someone prepended a def class atop this =) > > > I think my problem stems from the fact you should be initializing the > > class with the eyeObj and whatever other information, and then calling > > eye.rig() > > if you wnated to really start to follow the paradigm of class use/OOP > > > Cheers. > > > On Jul 28, 12:34 am, PixelMuncher <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Thanks much - this gives me something to build upon. > > > @ Justin: > > > Why did you specify an 'object' param to be passed to the class? -- view archives: http://groups.google.com/group/python_inside_maya change your subscription settings: http://groups.google.com/group/python_inside_maya/subscribe
