Modifying Class Object

[Alf P. Steinbach]

* Steve Holden:
> Alf P. Steinbach wrote:
>> * Steve Holden:
> [...]
>>> Alf:
>>>
>>> This topic was discussed at great, nay interminable, length about a year
>>> ago. I'd appreciate it if you would search the archives and read what
>>> was said then rather than hashing the whole topic over again to nobody's
>>> real advantage.
>> Well that's my point, and thanks for backing me up on that :-): it's
>> very simple, and as demonstrated can be expressed in 10 words or less
>> (plus perhaps a terminology reference, as I did above), so all that
>> discussion and in particular the lengthy article at effbot serves as
>> obfuscation and nothing else.
>>
> Please don't assume I was trying to support you. Your remarks showed
> considerable ignorance of issue that were extremely nuanced. Whatever
> point you were trying to make was lost in your self-aggrandizing
> disrespect of Fredrik Lundh, a software engineer of some repute with a
> long history of contribution to Python. The fact that your post was
> basically a restatement of one of the several competing positions in
> that thread makes it no more right than any of the others.

What on Earth are you babbling about?

Perhaps next you'll drag in the Pope, saying I've shown him some disrespect.

News for you: the Pope ain't participating.


>> By the way, most every programming language has some corner like that,
>> something that is utterly simple but somehow has some kind of
>> obfuscation-meme attached.
>>
> Why thank you for the education. Somehow in my 40-odd years of
> programming I had quite overlooked that fact. Which helps how?
> 
>> In C++ it's "call" and "constructor". It doesn't help that the
>> language's standard lays down the law on it, it doesn't help that the
>> language's creator has laid down the law, it doesn't help that it's
>> utterly and completely simple. Somehow newbies and even some experienced
>> people manage to create their own terminological nightmare  and drawing
>> conclusions about reality from that misguided obfuscated view, and then
>> discussing it up and down and sideways.
>>
> Which IMHO you have done little to assist. Just how exactly *do* we
> succeed in asking you not to discuss something?

That's just a silly as the above. Hello? *Not* discuss an on-topic topic?

Anyways, we haven't reached discussion yet, if it will ever come to that.

All I see is a lot of silly noise about a simple trivially true technical 
statement, with incoherent allegations of disrespect to the Pope, the current 
king of France, and whomever, unfortunately as usual in this group. :-(



Cheers & hth.,

- Alf