Mark Hammond wrote:
>
> > Can I get at least a +0? :)
>
> Im quite amazed this is contentious! Definately a +1 from me!
>
> Mark.
>
Amazed or not, it is contentious. I have the responsability to
remove my veto once my concerns are adressed. So far, I have the
impression that all I get (if I get anything at all -- see above)
is "conveniency" from Gordon, which is nothing else but laziness
about creating instances.
As long as we discuss customization of objects with builtin types,
the "inconsistency" stays bound to classes and instances. Add modules
if you wish, but they are just namespaces. This proposal expands
the customization inconsistency to functions and methods. And I am
reluctant to see this happening "under the hood", without a global
vision of the problem, just because a couple of people have abused
unprotected attributes and claim that they can't do what they want
because Python doesn't let them to.
As to the object model, together with naming and binding, I say:
KISS or do it right the first time.
add-more-oil-to-the-fire-and-you'll-burn-your-house-<wink>-ly y'rs
--
Vladimir MARANGOZOV | Vladimir.Marangozov@inrialpes.fr
http://sirac.inrialpes.fr/~marangoz | tel:(+33-4)76615277 fax:76615252
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4