Path looks good. Cheers Kent. On 6/8/05, Kent Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Lee Cullens wrote:> I was thinking of extending the learning exercise by re-factoring it> as an OO approach, since it would contain a minimum altered method.> Being new to OOP also though, I'm confusing myself with how
Lee Cullens wrote:
> I was thinking of extending the learning exercise by re-factoring it
> as an OO approach, since it would contain a minimum altered method.
> Being new to OOP also though, I'm confusing myself with how that
> would be best accomplished. My thinking is that class/subclass
Thanks again for your thoughts Javier.
You've certainly given me a mouthful to chew on :~) I was thinking
more in terms of "OOP is about code reuse" and trying to equate the
function approach to such with the class methods approach in a
similar way. Obviously I have got my mind wrapped aro
Lee Cullens wrote:
> I was thinking of extending the learning exercise by re-factoring it
> as an OO approach, since it would contain a minimum altered method.
> Being new to OOP also though, I'm confusing myself with how that
> would be best accomplished. My thinking is that class/subclass
In my original post I noted my recent exposure to Python and put up a
little utility to my iDisk asking for a Pythonese/Efficiency/
Generalese critique.
Javier, Kent and Liam were gracious enough to offer comments, which
were greatly appreciated. To follow through with the learning
exercis
