Why self?

[Robb Shecter]

Alex Martelli wrote:

>>Well, I'd say that an object understanding the message I send to it, or
>>being the type of object I think it is - success or failure - surely is
>>a big difference!  Sort of the name of the whole game...
> 
> An object can "understand" (well...) the message (out of metaphor: be
> able to supply the attribute or method you're asking of it) WITHOUT
> "being the type you think it is".  This is called POLYMORPHISM, and
> IS the whole game.
> 

Damn!  The all-caps are out.  And to beat that, I've been blindsided by 
a red herring!

1. So you're uhh... agreeing but not?
2. I'm down w/ polymorphism, man!  I'm all over over it.  There's a big 
difference between type and class, for starters, and 'type' as in 
'implements an interface' is what I'm talking about.

No, you don't know me, but I know OO.  :-)