On Sat, Jan 23, 2016 at 7:20 PM, Alan Gauld <alan.ga...@btinternet.com> wrote: > On 23/01/16 09:30, Cameron Simpson wrote: > >> Alan will take you up on doing purer OO practices in Python. > > In pure OO objects should only expose methods and the data > attributes should only be there to support the methods. > As such, nobody outside the object has any need to know > anything about it...
Apparently what OOP knowledge I started out with agrees strongly with what you say here. But this level of *purity* appears to be non-Pythonic in actual practice. So, in your opinion, how far should I go towards emulating pure OO objects? > One of the features of OO programming is that large > monolithic algorithms/functions often get split into small > chunks distributed over several classes. With functions, the ideal is that each function executes a single, specific purpose. With large classes, what should I use as a guide as to when to split them into smaller ones? My initial thought would be whenever a portion of the larger class models nicely into its own class, perhaps one that looks to be useful on its own in other programming scenarios. Am I close to hitting the nail on the head here? Thanks, Alan! -- boB _______________________________________________ Tutor maillist - Tutor@python.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/tutor
