On 3/18/2013 11:31 PM, Andrew Barnert wrote:
The idea that message passing is fundamentally different from method
calling also turned out to be one of those strange ideas, since it
only took a couple years to prove that they are theoretically
completely isomorphic—and,
Since the isomorphism
On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 1:09 PM, Terry Reedy tjre...@udel.edu wrote:
On 3/18/2013 11:31 PM, Andrew Barnert wrote:
The idea that message passing is fundamentally different from method
calling also turned out to be one of those strange ideas, since it
only took a couple years to prove that they
So, by introducing this collaboration mechanism with a syntax that defines it
as sending and receiving things that are *not* arbitrary objects, the language
would naturally reinforce a more thoroughly decoupled architecture?
Sent from my iPad
On Mar 17, 2013, at 8:53 PM, Mark Janssen
On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 11:46 PM, Steven D'Aprano st...@pearwood.info wrote:
I am very interested in this as a concept, although I must admit I'm not
entirely sure what you mean by it. I've read your comment on the link above,
and subsequent emails in this thread, and I'm afraid I don't
Ian Cordasco wrote:
On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 11:53 PM, Mark Janssen
dreamingforw...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello,
I just posted an answers on quora.com about OOP (http://qr.ae/TM1Vb)
and wanted to engage the python community on the subject.
My answer to that question would be that it *did*
On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 10:18 AM, Mark Janssen
dreamingforw...@gmail.com wrote:
Ian Cordasco wrote:
On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 11:53 PM, Mark Janssen
dreamingforw...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello,
I just posted an answers on quora.com about OOP (http://qr.ae/TM1Vb)
and wanted to engage the python
zipher於 2013年3月19日星期二UTC+8上午1時04分36秒寫道：
On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 11:46 PM, Steven D'Aprano st...@pearwood.info wrote:
I am very interested in this as a concept, although I must admit I'm not
entirely sure what you mean by it. I've read your comment on the link above,
and subsequent
You're dreaming of a utopia where computers just read our minds and
know what we're thinking. So what if I can pass 42 into an object.
What do I intend to happen with that 42? Do I want to add the element
to a list? Access the 42nd element? Delete the 42nd element? Let the
object pick a
8 Dihedral dihedral88...@googlemail.com writes:
zipher於 2013年3月19日星期二UTC+8上午1時04分36秒寫道：
the key conceptual shift is that by enforcing a syntax that moves
away from invoking methods and move to message passing between
objects, you're automatically enforcing a more modular approach.
On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 12:06 PM, Georg Brandl g.bra...@gmx.net wrote:
Am 18.03.2013 05:26, schrieb Mark Janssen:
Continuing on this thread, there would be a new bunch of behaviors to
be defined. Since everything is an object, there can now be a
standard way to define the *next* common
On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 1:24 PM, Mark Janssen dreamingforw...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 12:06 PM, Georg Brandl g.bra...@gmx.net wrote:
Am 18.03.2013 05:26, schrieb Mark Janssen:
Continuing on this thread, there would be a new bunch of behaviors to
be defined. Since everything
On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 2:51 PM, Andrew Barnert abarn...@yahoo.com wrote:
Have you even looked at a message-passing language?
A Smalltalk message is a selector and a sequence of arguments. That's what
you send around. Newer dynamic-typed message-passing OO and actor languages
are basically
From: Mark Janssen dreamingforw...@gmail.com
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2013 4:41 PM
On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 2:51 PM, Andrew Barnert abarn...@yahoo.com
wrote:
Have you even looked at a message-passing language?
A Smalltalk message is a selector and a sequence of arguments.
That's what
13 matches
Mail list logo
