Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.python > #36771 > unrolled thread

PyWart (Terminolgy): "Class"

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.python

Contents

  PyWart (Terminolgy): "Class" Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> - 2013-01-13 22:46 -0800
    Re: PyWart (Terminolgy): "Class" Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-01-14 18:10 +1100
    Re: PyWart (Terminolgy): "Class" Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> - 2013-01-13 23:32 -0800
      Re: PyWart (Terminolgy): "Class" Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-01-14 18:56 +1100
        Re: PyWart (Terminolgy): "Class" Dan Sommers <dan@tombstonezero.net> - 2013-01-14 14:46 +0000
      Re: PyWart (Terminolgy): "Class" Tim Chase <python.list@tim.thechases.com> - 2013-01-14 08:30 -0600
      Re: PyWart (Terminolgy): "Class" Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2013-01-14 13:59 -0500
        Re: PyWart (Terminolgy): "Class" Peter <peter.milliken@gmail.com> - 2013-01-14 11:43 -0800
          Re: PyWart (Terminolgy): "Class" Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-01-15 07:57 +1100
            Re: PyWart (Terminolgy): "Class" Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2013-01-15 02:08 +0000
              Re: PyWart (Terminolgy): "Class" "D'Arcy J.M. Cain" <darcy@druid.net> - 2013-01-14 22:28 -0500
                Re: PyWart (Terminolgy): "Class" alex23 <wuwei23@gmail.com> - 2013-01-15 00:44 -0800
          Re: PyWart (Terminolgy): "Class" Tim Delaney <tim.delaney@aptare.com> - 2013-01-15 08:04 +1100
        Re: PyWart (Terminolgy): "Class" Peter <peter.milliken@gmail.com> - 2013-01-14 11:43 -0800
          Re: PyWart (Terminolgy): "Class" "Rhodri James" <rhodri@wildebst.demon.co.uk> - 2013-01-14 22:53 +0000
    Re: PyWart (Terminolgy): "Class" Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2013-01-14 17:26 +0000
      Re: PyWart (Terminolgy): "Class" Tim Chase <python.list@tim.thechases.com> - 2013-01-14 12:00 -0600
        Re: PyWart (Terminolgy): "Class" Dan Sommers <dan@tombstonezero.net> - 2013-01-15 00:51 +0000
      Re: PyWart (Terminolgy): "Class" Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> - 2013-01-14 22:54 -0800
        Re: PyWart (Terminolgy): "Class" Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2013-01-15 09:01 +0000

#36771 — PyWart (Terminolgy): "Class"

I have believed for a very long time that "class" was a poor choice of keyword to designate an "object definition".

Firstly, the word /class/ does not transform smoothly into CS from English. NO English definition of "class" comes anywhere close to describing the "structured source code that defines an object".  Or even generally as: "something that defines something else". You could try to hammer "classification" into the round hole, but you soon find out it's just a damn square peg!

Secondly, "class" is confusing to newbies. How can someone understand the fundamentals of OOP (which defines objects and interfaces) when they are asked to write classes?  (teacher:) "Okay /class/, we are going to create a new object by writing a class." (student:) HUH?

Thirdly, once people *DO* understand that a "class" is simply an "object definition", they still go on to say idiotic things like: "Classes are objects"! It is obvious these people are a victim of their own terminology.

============================================================
Other possible terms include:
============================================================

"subclass":
    Since every "user defined object" *must* subclass /something/, using this word would infer such a relationship to the reader. HOWEVER, we would then need to differentiate the general usage of "subclass" (as in: an object that is an extension of another object) from a "user defined subclass" (as in: source code). In any event, "subclass" is a good contender. He's going to the 12th round for sure.

"template":
    This term is very close, but still lacking a concrete relationship between source code (definition of object) and the resulting "thing" living in memory (object). I think this one is TKO in round 3.

"object":
    This is my favorite word however it does suffer a "verbial" disconnection. What are we suggesting? A single word can be very ambiguous as to intent. However, if we couple the word "object" with the word "define" we then inject intent. "define object" on it's face is perfect! We know everything we need to know. 1) We are defining "something" and 2) that *THAT* "something" is an object! YAY!

Now since "methods" and "functions" (PyWart on these terms coming soon!) require defining, the syntax will now be symmetrical (omitting for now that funcs/meths only use "def"!). However we could drop the "def" and use only "object" to save a few keystrokes and a lot of pyparsing.

I am sure the main arguments against such a clear and logical syntax would be that we would confuse "object definitions" with "real live objects" in normal conversation. But i say that is non-sense because we NEED to be more specific when conversing anyway. Choosing a word like "class" just because we don't want to use two words to refer to "source code that defines an object" (in conversation) is ridiculous. This syntax will inject specificity into our communications and convey meaning more appropriately.

Dear language designers: Stop propagating such foolish terminology! End the infection of "class" in all source code, docs, and daily conversation. Be more consistent and logical. Resist temptation to use poor terminology simply because other languages have done so before you. Grow a pair already!

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#36773

On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 5:46 PM, Rick Johnson
<rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear language designers: Stop propagating such foolish terminology! End the infection of "class" in all source code, docs, and daily conversation. Be more consistent and logical. Resist temptation to use poor terminology simply because other languages have done so before you. Grow a pair already!

Absolutely. We should learn from Lars Pensjö and start referring to
"blueprint objects" and "clones". Or take the updated version and call
them "programs" and "objects". I'm sure that'll make a huge amount
more sense than using the terms that millions of programmers already
understand.

Alternatively, we could take the Humpty Dumpty approach and assign
meanings to names arbitrarily. But wait till Saturday night when they
come for their wages.

ChrisA

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#36774

On Monday 1-14-2013 at 12:46 AM, Rick Johnson wrote:
> [...]
> "object":
> 
> This is my favorite word however it does suffer a
> "verbial" disconnection. What are we suggesting? A single
> word can be very ambiguous as to intent. However, if we
> couple the word "object" with the word "define" we then
> inject intent. "define object" on it's face is perfect! 

I just had an epiphany of sorts. 

I really don't like using two words ("define object", or "def obj") and using one single keyword is ambiguous ("object" or "obj"). So the obvious solution is to combine the abbreviated words into one compound keyword that will save keystrokes, save parsing, and all-the-while maintain symmetry. That keyword is "defobj". Coupled with "defmeth" and "deffunc" we now have a symmetrical definition syntax!

deffunc bar():
   return

defobj Foo():
    defmeth __init__(self, blah):
        pass

Extra Credit: Can anyone think of a better solution for defining objects without using keywords at all? Hmm... I'm getting a chubby just thinking about it!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#36775

On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 6:32 PM, Rick Johnson
<rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> wrote:
> I really don't like using two words ("define object", or "def obj") and using one single keyword is ambiguous ("object" or "obj"). So the obvious solution is to combine the abbreviated words into one compound keyword that will save keystrokes, save parsing, and all-the-while maintain symmetry. That keyword is "defobj". Coupled with "defmeth" and "deffunc" we now have a symmetrical definition syntax!
>
> deffunc bar():
>    return
>
> defobj Foo():
>     defmeth __init__(self, blah):
>         pass

Awesome! Now, just one more step to make Python into the World's Most
Awesome Language(tm): Replace those lengthy words with single symbols
found in the Unicode set; compress everything down and enforce perfect
Unicode handling. Also, demand that names be one character long, to
enforce creativity by the Mark Rosewater principle. We will then have
a truly wonderful language; everything will be so utterly readable.

ChrisA

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#36789

On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 18:56:08 +1100, Chris Angelico wrote:

> Awesome! Now, just one more step to make Python into the World's Most
> Awesome Language(tm): Replace those lengthy words with single symbols
> found in the Unicode set; compress everything down and enforce perfect
> Unicode handling. Also, demand that names be one character long, to
> enforce creativity by the Mark Rosewater principle. We will then have a
> truly wonderful language; everything will be so utterly readable.

I think we did that once.  We called it APL.  ;-)

Dan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#36787

On 01/14/13 01:56, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 6:32 PM, Rick Johnson
> <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I really don't like using two words ("define object", or "def obj") and using one single keyword is ambiguous ("object" or "obj"). So the obvious solution is to combine the abbreviated words into one compound keyword that will save keystrokes, save parsing, and all-the-while maintain symmetry. That keyword is "defobj". Coupled with "defmeth" and "deffunc" we now have a symmetrical definition syntax!
>>
>> deffunc bar():
>>     return
>>
>> defobj Foo():
>>      defmeth __init__(self, blah):
>>          pass
>
> Awesome! Now, just one more step to make Python into the World's Most
> Awesome Language(tm): Replace those lengthy words with single symbols
> found in the Unicode set; compress everything down and enforce perfect
> Unicode handling.

APL will rise to linguistic domination! «maniacal laughter»

-tkc

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#36811

On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 18:56:08 +1100, Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com>
declaimed the following in gmane.comp.python.general:

> Awesome! Now, just one more step to make Python into the World's Most
> Awesome Language(tm): Replace those lengthy words with single symbols
> found in the Unicode set; compress everything down and enforce perfect
> Unicode handling. Also, demand that names be one character long, to
> enforce creativity by the Mark Rosewater principle. We will then have
> a truly wonderful language; everything will be so utterly readable.
>

	<shudder> The offspring of a wild night between LISP and APL?

	"World's Most Awesome Language"... World's MAL... "mal" being French
for "sickness"...
-- 
	Wulfraed                 Dennis Lee Bieber         AF6VN
        wlfraed@ix.netcom.com    HTTP://wlfraed.home.netcom.com/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#36814

Real mature lot of responses here guys - shows how much you have grown up.

Reading this thread looked more like observing a bunch of 3rd grader - somebody offers an opinion and all you can do is ridicule it?

Real mature - certainly gives Python a good name having followers like this...

But then I guess I will cop flack for this rejoinder too...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#36819

On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 6:43 AM, Peter <peter.milliken@gmail.com> wrote:
> Real mature lot of responses here guys - shows how much you have grown up.
>
> Reading this thread looked more like observing a bunch of 3rd grader - somebody offers an opinion and all you can do is ridicule it?
>
> Real mature - certainly gives Python a good name having followers like this...
>
> But then I guess I will cop flack for this rejoinder too...

Rick Johnson is a well-known troll. Opinion is divided as to the best
way to handle the matter; one school follows the "Don't feed the
trolls" motto and ignores him, the other trolls him right back. Rick
has promised for a long time now that he's going to produce a Python
4000 (though I suspect Guido will produce Python 4.0 first, so it'll
become Python 5000), but so far we haven't seen *any* code. His
eternal complaints about Python are thus pure trolling and not well
respected.

I'm sorry the forum comes across sounding immature, but it's like a
good game of Whack-A-Troll, or what Railbastard calls an
"apparatusing". It's the community's way of maintaining itself.

Expressing opinions won't get you flamed. Demanding that other people
write a whole lot of code to suit your ridiculous notions of "warts"
and doing none of the coding yourself, and keeping this up for years
and years, WILL eventually get you flamed. And along the way, it gets
you into a lot of people's killfiles.

Oh, and Dennis? Mal. Bad. From the Latin. :)

ChrisA

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#36829

On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 07:57:58 +1100, Chris Angelico wrote:

> Rick Johnson is a well-known troll.

I disagree that Rick is a troll. Trolling requires that the troll makes 
statements that he doesn't believe are true, simply in order to get a 
response. I do not believe that Rick is doing that. I think he simply has 
an imperfect, and poor, understanding of Python design principles, 
coupled with astonishingly high levels of arrogance and self-superiority. 
Pure Dunning-Kruger effect in action.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Dunning-Kruger_effect


If I believed he was *dishonestly playing dumb to gain reactions*, then I 
would not bother to engage with him. But I truly believe that he is not 
beyond all hope. His posts on tkinter sometimes demonstrate actual 
knowledge. He is clearly articulate and knows more than one programming 
language -- although probably not *well*.

But, I must admit, the sheer power of Rick's Reality Denial Field often 
defeats me. In frustration I too often killfile him so I don't have to 
read his screeds. So I certainly don't blame others who do the same.


> Opinion is divided as to the best
> way to handle the matter; one school follows the "Don't feed the trolls"
> motto and ignores him, the other trolls him right back.

I object to that characterisation. I am not dishonestly making 
provocative statements when I engage with Rick.


-- 
Steven

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#36830

On 15 Jan 2013 02:08:38 GMT
Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> wrote:
> > Rick Johnson is a well-known troll.
> 
> I disagree that Rick is a troll. Trolling requires that the troll

Doesn't matter.  He duck types as one.

-- 
D'Arcy J.M. Cain <darcy@druid.net>         |  Democracy is three wolves
http://www.druid.net/darcy/                |  and a sheep voting on
+1 416 425 1212     (DoD#0082)    (eNTP)   |  what's for dinner.
IM: darcy@Vex.Net

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#36845

On Jan 15, 1:28 pm, "D'Arcy J.M. Cain" <da...@druid.net> wrote:
> Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info> wrote:
> > I disagree that Rick is a troll. Trolling requires that the troll
>
> Doesn't matter.  He duck types as one.

+1

Intent isn't magic. If Rick intends to contribute, he could actually
contribute.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#36820

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On 15 January 2013 07:57, Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> Oh, and Dennis? Mal. Bad. From the Latin. :)
>

I was about to point out the same thing, using the same quote ;)

Tim Delaney

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#36825

Real mature lot of responses here guys - shows how much you have grown up.

Reading this thread looked more like observing a bunch of 3rd grader - somebody offers an opinion and all you can do is ridicule it?

Real mature - certainly gives Python a good name having followers like this...

But then I guess I will cop flack for this rejoinder too...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#36826

On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 19:43:34 -0000, Peter <peter.milliken@gmail.com> wrote:

> Real mature lot of responses here guys - shows how much you have grown  
> up.
>
> Reading this thread looked more like observing a bunch of 3rd grader -  
> somebody offers an opinion and all you can do is ridicule it?

Now read the rest of the thread.  While it is true that Rick offers  
sufficiently many daft opinions that ridicule is actually likely to be the  
correct response, there have been detailed (and therefore ignored)  
responses pointing out his failure to understand both the English language  
and the last couple of decades of computer science.

-- 
Rhodri James *-* Wildebeest Herder to the Masses

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#36800

On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 22:46:44 -0800, Rick Johnson wrote:

> I have believed for a very long time that "class" was a poor choice of
> keyword to designate an "object definition".
> 
> Firstly, the word /class/ does not transform smoothly into CS from
> English. NO English definition of "class" comes anywhere close to
> describing the "structured source code that defines an object".  Or even
> generally as: "something that defines something else".


Your knowledge of English has failed you. Here is the first definition 
from Webster's Dictionary (1913 edition):


Class \Class\ (kl[.a]s), n. [F. classe, fr. L. classis class,
   collection, fleet; akin to Gr. klh^sis a calling, kalei^n to
   call, E. claim, haul.]
   1. A group of individuals ranked together as possessing
      common characteristics; as, the different classes of
      society; the educated class; the lower classes.
      [1913 Webster]


And definitions 3 and 4:


   3. A comprehensive division of animate or inanimate objects,
      grouped together on account of their common
      characteristics, in any classification in natural science,
      and subdivided into orders, families, tribes, genera, etc.
      [1913 Webster]

   4. A set; a kind or description, species or variety.
      [1913 Webster]


"Class" is an excellent ordinary English word to describe what computer 
science calls a "class".



> Thirdly, once people *DO* understand that a "class" is simply an "object
> definition", they still go on to say idiotic things like: "Classes are
> objects"! 

Your knowledge of Python has failed you.

Classes are objects in Python, although not in all other languages.

Classes are created at runtime, not compile time. They have an id, like 
all instances. They have a __class__ attribute, like all instances. They 
have a type, like all instances. They *are* instances.

py> class Spam(object):
...     pass
...
py> id(Spam)
168149924
py> isinstance(Spam, type)
True


> It is obvious these people are a victim of their own terminology.

You're very funny.


> "subclass":
>     Since every "user defined object" *must* subclass /something/, 

Only in Python 3. In Python 2, some classes are not subclasses.

py> class OldStyleClass:
...     pass
...
py> OldStyleClass.__bases__
()


> "template":
>     This term is very close, but still lacking a concrete relationship
>     between source code (definition of object) and the resulting "thing"
>     living in memory (object). I think this one is TKO in round 3.

A template is certainly not correct for class-based OOP languages like 
Python, since it implies *copying*. It might be more appropriate for 
prototype-cased OOP languages like Javascript.


[...]
> Now since "methods" and "functions" (PyWart on these terms coming soon!)

Oh I can barely contain my excitement.


-- 
Steven

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#36806

On 01/14/13 11:26, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> Your knowledge of English has failed you. Here is the first definition
> from Webster's Dictionary (1913 edition):
>
>
> Class \Class\ (kl[.a]s), n. [F. classe, fr. L. classis class,
>     collection, fleet; akin to Gr. klh^sis a calling, kalei^n to
>     call, E. claim, haul.]
>     1. A group of individuals ranked together as possessing
>        common characteristics; as, the different classes of
>        society; the educated class; the lower classes.
>        [1913 Webster]


Clearly Python should use a keyword like "Kingdom" or "Phylum" 
instead.  I guess "Kingdom" should be reserved for metaclasses (or 
would they be metaphylums?  or metaphyla?)

   kingdom Baz:
      pass

   phylum Foo:
     __metaphylum__ = Baz

That is SO much clearer ;-)

-tkc

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#36828

On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 12:00:13 -0600, Tim Chase wrote:

> Clearly Python should use a keyword like "Kingdom" or "Phylum" instead. 
> I guess "Kingdom" should be reserved for metaclasses (or would they be
> metaphylums?  or metaphyla?)

Metaphyla, of course.

>    kingdom Baz:
>       pass
> 
>    phylum Foo:
>      __metaphylum__ = Baz

But it's obvious that kingdoms are metaphyla, and it would be silly for 
one phylum to inherit from another (let alone for a phylum to inherit 
from a class), so couldn't we just claim that Foo inherits from Baz and 
be done with it:

    phylum Foo(Baz):
        pass

> That is SO much clearer ;-)

For some definitions of "SO" and "much," yes.  ;-)

Dan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#36837

On Monday, January 14, 2013 11:26:37 AM UTC-6, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 22:46:44 -0800, Rick Johnson wrote:
> [...]
> Your knowledge of English has failed you. Here is the first definition 
> from Webster's Dictionary (1913 edition):
> 
> Class [...]
>    1. A group of individuals ranked together as possessing
>       common characteristics; as, the different classes of
>       society; the educated class; the lower classes.
>       [1913 Webster]

This is a poor definition for an object. I would rather apply this definition to a collection of objects than to the definition of a single object. Remember, we want to choose a word that is "self documenting". 

> And definitions 3 and 4:
> 
>    3. A comprehensive division of animate or inanimate objects,
>       grouped together on account of their common
>       characteristics, in any classification in natural science,
>       and subdivided into orders, families, tribes, genera, etc.
>       [1913 Webster]
> 
>    4. A set; a kind or description, species or variety.
>       [1913 Webster]

But again, neither of these definitions describe what an object is, in fact, "class" creates a cognitive disconnect between "object definitions" and "objects". "Class" is only concerned with grouping, characteristics, or comparisons. 

And let's not forget the obvious. When we are defining "objects" we are wielding a paradigm called "Object Oriented Programming". Only a fool would choose something besides "object" as a keyword.

> "Class" is an excellent ordinary English word to describe what computer 
> science calls a "class".

Well if that statement is not a fine example of circular reasoning, i don't what is. o_O 

> > Thirdly, once people *DO* understand that a "class" is simply an "object
> > definition", they still go on to say idiotic things like: "Classes are
> > objects"! 
> 
> Your knowledge of Python has failed you.
> 
> Classes are objects in Python, although not in all other languages.

Python "classes" are OBJECT DEFINITIONS, not OBJECTS!

> Classes are created at runtime, not compile time. 

No, classes DO NOT exist at runtime OR compile time! Classes are only *structured text* (or code if you prefer) that instruct Python to build *real* MEMORY OBJECTS for us. The "magic" that you are witnessing is Python, not classes. Would you argue as intently that the fictional characters of LOTR are real? They could be considered real in your imagination, but without a mind to interpret these characters they will be nothing more than text on a page. Same goes for classes.

> They [classes] have an id, like 
> all instances. They have a __class__ attribute, like all instances. They 
> have a type, like all instances. They *are* instances.

Replace "class" with object and you will be correct.

> py> class Spam(object):
> ...     pass
> ...
> py> id(Spam)
> 168149924
> py> isinstance(Spam, type)
> True

Do you understand that your object definition named "Spam" is transformed into a memory object by python and that the id() function and the isinstance() function are operating on a memory object and not your structured text? Stop fooling around Steven, really.

> > "subclass":
> >     Since every "user defined object" *must* subclass /something/, 
> 
> Only in Python 3. In Python 2, some classes are not subclasses.
> 
> py> class OldStyleClass:
> ...     pass
> ...
> py> OldStyleClass.__bases__
> ()

Ignoring the fact that this comment has nothing to do with the main argument and is in fact an attempt to distract the audience from your downward spiral of circular reasoning... "OldStyleClasses are a direct result of GvR and his anti OOP (anti functional also) programming mentality and lend no weight to your argument. Gudio was wrong to allow classes to be defined without deriving from /something/. He wisely removed old style classes in Python3000. They don't exist in Python's future. Let them rest in peace.

> > "template":
> >     This term is very close, but still lacking a concrete relationship
> >     between source code (definition of object) and the resulting "thing"
> >     living in memory (object). I think this one is TKO in round 3.
> 
> A template is certainly not correct for class-based OOP languages like 
> Python, since it implies *copying*. It might be more appropriate for 
> prototype-cased OOP languages like Javascript.

Agreed. I never really liked the term anyway, but i needed one more choice to round out my list of candidates. Think of "template" as the ugly friend the  average girl brings to the bar to make herself seem prettier by comparison. *wink*

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#36846

On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 22:54:10 -0800, Rick Johnson wrote:

> No, classes DO NOT exist at runtime OR compile time! Classes are only
> *structured text* (or code if you prefer) that instruct Python to build
> *real* MEMORY OBJECTS for us. The "magic" that you are witnessing is
> Python, not classes.

Ultimately, everything in Python is "structured text", because the only 
way to create a Python program is to write source code. Everything you 
say is equally true for every other data type in Python. Floats. Strings. 
Ints. Lists. Tuples. Dicts. *Everything*. They are only "structured text" 
when they appear in source code, or on the command line, or in the 
interactive interpreter, just like classes, and Python then constructs an 
object in memory to represent that data structure. Just like classes.

So if you wish to deny that classes are objects, you also have to deny 
that lists and strings and ints and floats are objects too.

In Python, either nothing is an object, or everything is an object. There 
is no middle ground. You cannot treat classes differently from lists, 
because Python treats them the same:

source code of a list literal => list object in memory

source code of a float literal => float object in memory

source code of a class definition => class object in memory



>> py> class Spam(object):
>> ...     pass
>> ...
>> py> id(Spam)
>> 168149924
>> py> isinstance(Spam, type)
>> True
> 
> Do you understand that your object definition named "Spam" is
> transformed into a memory object by python and that the id() function
> and the isinstance() function are operating on a memory object and not
> your structured text?

You don't need a class statement ("object definition") to create a class 
object. Because classes are instances of the metaclass, there is a 
default metaclass (called "type") that does the work of instantiating the 
metaclass:


py> name = "Spam"
py> bases = (object,)
py> dict_ = {}
py> thingy = type(name, bases, dict_)
py> isinstance(thingy, type)
True
py> thingy
<class '__main__.Spam'>

Classes are instances of type. That is reality in Python.

Classes are objects just like ints and strings and lists. This is a 
fundamental design choice of Python. Deal with it.



-- 
Steven

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.python

csiph-web