In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, bruno at modulix <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>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). It's nothing to do with OO, because it's also present in non-OO languages. >> Unless you subscribe to the "OO is whatever looks like a good >> programming idea" definition <http://www.paulgraham.com/reesoo.html>. > >Not really !-) One would hope not. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
