> For what it's worth, it seems to me to be perfectly normal to have > classes that are only ever intended to have a single instance. For > example, you're never likely to need more than one HTML parser, and > yet htmllib.HTMLParser is a class...
That's true but the argument for a class in that case is that we can subclass it for more specialized purposes. If there is only to be a single instance and it will not be specialized by sub classing then a simple module will do the job just nicely. > As Kent said, the main point of a class is that you have a collection > of data and operations on that data bundled together. Dunno if I'd agree that that was the *main point* of classes, the main point I'd say was to act as a template for objects. The fact that there might only be one instance is a side issue. But creating classes that only have a single instance is certainly OK, after all the original design patterns book by the GoF has a singleton pattern to ensure that only one oinstance can be created! > "I want lots of things like this", as it is a declaration of > modularity -- "This stuff all belongs together as a unit". So use a module... Python is blessed with both constructs and we should use whichever is most appropriate. IMHO of course! :-) Alan G Author of the Learn to Program web tutor http://www.freenetpages.co.uk/hp/alan.gauld _______________________________________________ Tutor maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/tutor