[plt-scheme] An Editors Tale

Yes, we're getting the impression that a lot of "useful" Python code is 
written that way.

On Jan 28, 2004, at 9:42 AM, Ken Anderson wrote:

>   For list-related administrative tasks:
>   http://list.cs.brown.edu/mailman/listinfo/plt-scheme
>
> Do you really mean "most"?
> If by "translucent" you mean that a class can take on new fields and 
> behaviors, i think that can be important for piecemeal growth of an 
> application.

You can do more. You can change the superclass of a class at run-time. 
You can change its type. You can do anything you can imagine. It's like 
a MOP, without stratification.

> Isn't there a point when a python application, or library can be 
> treated as object oriented and then reasoned about?

I don't see such a point. Do you know one?

> Or is it like TCL where eveything is a string and unimaginable string 
> hacking can take place anywhere?

That's what I see. -- Matthias


>
> At 09:09 AM 1/27/2004 -0500, Matthias Felleisen wrote:
>> most Pythonistas seem to actually exploit the
>> translucent nature of objects and classes.