What is the semantics meaning of 'object'?

[Mark Janssen]

Sorry my last message got sent prematurely.  Retrying...

> So instead of super(), you would have sub()?  It's an interesting
> concept, but I don't think it changes anything.  You still have to
> design your classes cooperatively if you expect to use them with
> multiple inheritance.

Yes, and let new instances of the child classes automatically ensure
the contracts of the parent classes -- managed within the Python
interpreter, not the developer.

As for sub(), I suppose it could be called delegate().

The issue of classes cooperating isn't as big as it seems, because
since you're working now from a useful, agreed-upon common base (the
non-negotiable, but also non-arbitrary) machine types, you're now all
(the python and ideally the *object* community) speaking the same
language.   Who's going to argue about integers (as the atomic type)
and sets (as the most basic grouping type) being THE common set of
bases for everything else?  I mean, it doesn't get anymore ideal and
pure than integers and sets.  Combining integers with sets I can make
a Rational class and have infinite-precision arithmetic, for example.

That's a lot of power derived simply from using generic data
structures, not some panzy generic meta-Object that doesn't do
anything but tie people to an implicit type-theology.

-- 
MarkJ
Tacoma, Washington