some problems for an introductory python test

[Hope Rouselle]

Chris Angelico <rosuav at gmail.com> writes:

[...]

>> not disagreeing... and yeah I could have thought deeper about the
>> answer, but I still think "notthing has been OOP" -> "yes it has, they
>> just didn't realize it"  was worth mentioning
>
> Oh yes, absolutely agree.

At the same time, inside the machine nothing is OOP --- so all the OOP
is no OOP at all and they just didn't realize it?  This seems to show
that OOP is about perspective.  An essential thing for OOP is the
keeping of states.  Closures can keep state, so having procedures as
first-class values allows us to say we are doing OOP too.  (Arguments of
procedures are messages and function application is message passing,
with closures keeping a state --- and all the rest of OOP can be
implemented with enough such functional technology.)  In summary, OOP
should not be defined as some special syntax, otherwise there is no OOP
in ``2 + 2''.

Having said that, I totally agree with all the nitpicking.