Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> bruno at modulix <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>>Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>(snip)
>>
>>>I think you're taking Python's OO-ness too seriously. One of the
>>>strengths of Python is that it can _look_ like an OO language without
>>>actually being OO.
>>
>>According to which definition of OO ?
>
>
> Isn't there one?
Your claim that Python "_look_ like an OO language without actually
being OO" implicitely relies on a definition of OO - or is just
meaningless. So I ask you: what definition of OO do you use to support
your claim ?
--
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
