Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > bruno at modulix <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >>Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: >> (snip) >>>I suppose this is an instance of the more general rule: "using OO when >>>you don't have to". >> >>Lawrence, I'm afraid you're confusing OO with "statically-typed >>class-based". FWIW, dynamic typing is part of OO since Smalltalk. > > > I wasn't talking about dynamic typing, I was talking about subclassing, > which is very much a part of OO.
What you wrote implies (well, at least I understand it that way) that polymorphic dispatch *not* based on subclassing is not OO. Hence my reaction : the need to use subclassing (inheritance) for subtyping (polymorphic dispatch) is not a requirement of object orientation and has never been - it's only a limitation of languages with declarative static typing (C++, Java, C# etc). > Unless you subscribe to the "OO is whatever looks like a good > programming idea" definition <http://www.paulgraham.com/reesoo.html>. Not really !-) -- bruno desthuilliers python -c "print '@'.join(['.'.join([w[::-1] for w in p.split('.')]) for p in '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'.split('@')])" -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
