Is classless worth consideration

[Terry Reedy]

"has" <has.temp2 at virgin.net> wrote in message
news:69cbbef2.0405020222.6024b162 at posting.google.com...
> s " <tjreedy at udel.edu> wrote in message
news:<mailman.175.1083442877.25742.python-list at python.org>...
>
> > Quoting from a previous post quoting by someone else:
> > > Modules are an encapsulation mechanism, just like class instances, so
> > > I'd say the large and obvious overlap counts as unnecessary
> >
> > I don't see this.  'Class instance' is an abstract concept, not a
> > particular object.
>
> Please forgive my linguistic sloppies. How about if I say 'an object
> of type "instance"'; does that sound clearer?

In a way, yes.  In the old class/instance system, all user-defined classes
were instances of type 'class' and all instances of user-defined classes
were instances (objects) of type 'instance'.  So that is what you appear to
be referring to whether you mean to or not.  When Python get a
code-breaking overhaul, this now redundant system will be dropped.

Python is currently a language for manipulating typed objects.  Changing it
to a languge for manipulating prototyped objects, with types eliminated,
would be a major change.  But I currently believe it is possible to do
prototyping within the current system.  Several years ago, I posted
(another group, maybe cross-posted here) a prototype Self class (based on
second-hand descriptions of Self, and therefore possibly inadequate) for
doing just that.  But I have not yet had reason to go any further with it.

So, for me, the way for someone to promote prototyping in Python, and
serious discussion thereof, would be to write a similar class and then a
neat application that exploits that class.

> I'm sorry if this sounds personal;

I am not interested in pseudopersonal 'advice' from someone who knows me
not.  I
prefer reading and discussing various Python topics.

Terry J. Reedy