Attack a sacred Python Cow

[Lawrence D'Oliveiro]

In message
<6385b0a8-f7f3-4dc3-91be-e6f158ffb439 at a1g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
s0suk3 at gmail.com wrote:

> On Jul 26, 6:47 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l... at geek-
> central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
>> In message
>> <024ace13-f72f-4093-bcc9-f8a339c32... at v1g2000pra.googlegroups.com>,
>>
>> s0s... at gmail.com wrote:
>> > On Jul 24, 5:01 am, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l... at geek-
>> > central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
>>
>> >> In message
>> >> <52404933-ce08-4dc1-a558-935bbbae7... at r35g2000prm.googlegroups.com>,
>> >> Jordan wrote:
>>
>> >> > Except when it comes to Classes. I added some classes to code that
>> >> > had previously just been functions, and you know what I did - or
>> >> > rather, forgot to do? Put in the 'self'. In front of some of the
>> >> > variable accesses, but more noticably, at the start of *every single
>> >> > method argument list.*
>>
>> >> The reason is quite simple. Python is not truly an "object-oriented"
>> >> language. It's sufficiently close to fool those accustomed to OO ways
>> >> of doing things, but it doesn't force you to do things that way. You
>> >> still have the choice. An implicit "self" would take away that choice.
>>
>> > By that logic, C++ is not OO.
>>
>> Yes it is, because it has "this".
> 
> You mean the keyword "this"? It's just a feature. How does that make a
> difference on being or not being OO?

Because it was one of the things the OP was complaining about (see above).