Attack a sacred Python Cow

[Bruno Desthuilliers]

Lawrence D'Oliveiro a écrit :
> In message
> <52404933-ce08-4dc1-a558-935bbbae779b 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.

Oh yes ? What's missing exactly ? You have objects that have an id, 
state and behaviour, and you have a message-passing mechanism.

You meant "Python is not truly a mainstream class-based language", I think.

> It's sufficiently close to fool those accustomed to OO ways  of
> doing things,

s/OO/class-based/

> but it doesn't force you to do things that way. You still
> have the choice. An implicit "self" would take away that choice.

It's not even a question of OO/non-OO. An implicit "self" would take 
away some things that makes Python's *object* model so powerful.