>Guido was opposed to modifying builtin types before Java existed. It's >similar to his opposition to dynamic syntax.
Opposition or not, the language definition is there. Surely Smalltalk's OO style can be respected. Smalltalkers have been doing OO in a dynamic context longer than many. There are things to learn there. There are two things here that need to be kept straight, I think. One is the primacy of builtin types. The other is placing those builtins at the top of their own object hierarchy. Is "int", properly speaking, a descendent of "object"? No, it's the root of its own tree. Smalltalk has "int" as well, as a *subclass* of Number. It's primitive. In any case, as respectful of Mr/Dr van Rossum as I am, simply because so-and-so says something is bad and therefore it must be true is a fallacious response. -- Jan -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
