Le Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:01:56 +0100, "A.T.Hofkamp" <a.t.hofk...@tue.nl> a écrit :
> > (And if it is any comfort to you, it happens to me too. I have read several > discussions about the "@" operator, and still don't understand why you'd want > to have it. No doubt it is a fantastic operator with many uses, but > apparently, not for me.) There may be a question of personal programmer style, and a question of personal history as programmer. I know people for whom OO is weird, useless, and... abstract (which is very true imo -- and even: the better you use it, the more abstract it is). There have learnt without it. When they must use it, e.g. for linking to modules, it's painful. I have learnt without OO (C,pascal) but it seems to fits my brain's "Weltanschauung" (way of watching the world?), as to say my style. But I had hard time with it a start, especially because of the high inconstency of all the various systems that wish to be called OO, and the inconstency of the OO lexicon. About @, it seems not to be style at all, as for you. Ditto for meta-classes (the few I have tried lead me to endless MRO problems). > Sincerely, > Albert > > _______________________________________________ > Tutor maillist - Tutor@python.org > http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/tutor > ------ la vida e estranya _______________________________________________ Tutor maillist - Tutor@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/tutor
