terminological obscurity
Arthur
ajsiegel at optonline.com
Sun May 30 07:44:01 EDT 2004
On Tue, 25 May 2004 08:19:49 +0200, "Fredrik Lundh"
<fredrik at pythonware.com> wrote:
>Arthur wrote:
>>
>> Well for one, before new style classes, it was easier to think of an
>> "instance" as in some sense a pseudo data type. Instances of
>> different classes - even with no hierarchical relationship - were more
>> conceptually homogenous.
>
>nonsense. Python has always used duck typing (what's important is what
>you can do with x, not what type(x) happens to be). this hasn't changed a
>bit.
Putting together what you and Martin are saying, am I correct then
that what type(x) returns in Python is something other than x's type.
that's strange.
Art
More information about the Python-list
mailing list