Re: Moving to an OOP model from an classically imperitive one

Path	csiph.com!usenet.pasdenom.info!weretis.net!feeder1.news.weretis.net!news.swapon.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From	Gregory Ewing <greg.ewing@canterbury.ac.nz>
Newsgroups	comp.lang.python
Subject	Re: Moving to an OOP model from an classically imperitive one
Date	Thu, 24 Apr 2014 12:26:46 +1200
Lines	25
Message-ID	<brr428FdllqU1@mid.individual.net> (permalink)
References	<80a82415-fc67-4ccf-8827-27a0ba5459b7@googlegroups.com> <mailman.9470.1398288213.18130.python-list@python.org>
Mime-Version	1.0
Content-Type	text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding	7bit
X-Trace	individual.net tnO6ucW/CiIZzIfKQV6asAY1bsoEmHkGlEb3n20TaOQb7cZJs+
Cancel-Lock	sha1:EeMhd/wdRgr9bhxrVGUR992oE5Q=
User-Agent	Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.5 (Macintosh/20050711)
X-Accept-Language	en-us, en
In-Reply-To	<mailman.9470.1398288213.18130.python-list@python.org>
Xref	csiph.com comp.lang.python:70561

Show key headers only | View raw

Ian Kelly wrote:

> How 
> about adding one abstract class per file, and then letting 
> SubuserProgram inherit from each of those individual classes?

I'd recommend against that kind of thing, because it makes
the code hard to follow. With module-level functions, you can
tell where any given function is coming from by looking at the
imports (as long as you haven't used 'import *', which is a
bad idea for this very reason).

But if you're looking at a method call on a class that
inherits from half a dozen base classes, it's hard to tell
which class it's implemented in.

In other words, massively multiple inheritance is the OO
equivalent of 'import *'.

The same goes for any scheme for injecting methods into a
class after defining it, only more so, because the reader
won't be expecting weird things like that.

-- 
Greg

Thread

Moving to an OOP model from an classically imperitive one tim.thelion@gmail.com - 2014-04-23 13:57 -0700
  Re: Moving to an OOP model from an classically imperitive one Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2014-04-23 22:15 +0100
  Re: Moving to an OOP model from an classically imperitive one Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2014-04-23 15:23 -0600
    Re: Moving to an OOP model from an classically imperitive one Gregory Ewing <greg.ewing@canterbury.ac.nz> - 2014-04-24 12:26 +1200
  Re: Moving to an OOP model from an classically imperitive one Ethan Furman <ethan@stoneleaf.us> - 2014-04-23 14:42 -0700
    Re: Moving to an OOP model from an classically imperitive one tim.thelion@gmail.com - 2014-04-24 00:32 -0700
  Re: Moving to an OOP model from an classically imperitive one MRAB <python@mrabarnett.plus.com> - 2014-04-24 00:08 +0100
    Re: Moving to an OOP model from an classically imperitive one tim.thelion@gmail.com - 2014-04-24 00:21 -0700
      Re: Moving to an OOP model from an classically imperitive one Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-04-24 17:36 +1000
      Re: Moving to an OOP model from an classically imperitive one Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2014-04-24 09:08 +0000
  Re: Moving to an OOP model from an classically imperitive one Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-04-24 09:12 +1000
  Re: Moving to an OOP model from an classically imperitive one Gregory Ewing <greg.ewing@canterbury.ac.nz> - 2014-04-24 12:21 +1200
    Re: Moving to an OOP model from an classically imperitive one tim.thelion@gmail.com - 2014-04-24 09:53 -0700
      Re: Moving to an OOP model from an classically imperitive one Amirouche Boubekki <amirouche.boubekki@gmail.com> - 2014-04-25 19:21 +0200
  Re:Moving to an OOP model from an classically imperitive one Dave Angel <davea@davea.name> - 2014-04-23 22:01 -0400

csiph-web