Language design

[TheDoctor]

On Friday, September 13, 2013 at 12:08:04 AM UTC-5, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Sep 2013 20:23:21 -0700, Mark Janssen wrote:
> which would be silly. Only somebody who doesn't understand how 
> inheritance works in Python would do that. There's simply no need for it, 
> and in fact it would be actively harmful for larger hierarchies.
> 
> >>> But wait is it the "base" (at the bottom of the hierarchy) or is it
> >>> the "parent" at the top?  You see, you, like everyone else has been
> >>> using these terms loosely, confusing yourself.
> >>
> >> Depends on whether I'm standing on my head or not.
> >>
> >> Or more importantly, it depends on whether I visualise my hierarchy
> >> going top->down or bottom->up. Both are relevant, and both end up with
> >> the *exact same hierarchy* with only the direction reversed.
> > 
> > Ha,  "only the direction reversed".  That little directionality that
> > you're passing by so blithely is the difference between whether you're
> > talking about galaxies or atoms.
> 
> It makes no difference whether I write:
> 
>     atoms -> stars -> galaxies
> 
> or
> 
>     galaxies <- stars <- atoms
> 
> nor does it make any difference if I write the chain starting at the top 
> and pointing down, or at the bottom and pointing up.

Yes it does.  Ford IS-A Car, but Car IS-A Ford?  No.  Try reordering that one.

I see we've missed each other with our limitations to ASCII text, in ways that would have never happened had these conversations occurred in person.  Re-reading my texts, I see that I can easily confuse myself.

> "not someone wanting to understand the limitations of python..." -- are 
> you aware that I started this thread?

Yes, but did you?  LOL.

Mark