[Python-3000] pep 3124 plans
Phillip J. Eby
pje at telecommunity.com
Sun Jul 22 03:58:49 CEST 2007
At 01:28 PM 7/22/2007 +1200, Greg Ewing wrote:
>Phillip J. Eby wrote:
> > Well, I've worked with people who dislike OO for exactly the same
> > reason, since they feel they can never know whether a method might
> > have been overridden in a subclass.
>I think there's a considerable difference in degree here,
>though. When you call a method, you know you're delegating
>responsibility to the object for carrying out that operation.
>And you know you're delegating it to that object and no
>other, so given the run-time type
Well, if you're looking at *run-time*, then you can equally well dump
out the runtime contents of a generic function, complete with
modules, filenames, and line numbers of every method. In the
peak.rules.core case, that operation would look something like:
from peak.rules.core import rules_for
Although you'd probably want nicer formatting. But that wouldn't be
hard to add.
>If any function can be overloaded, then *any* call could
>potentially be delegating somewhere, increasing the range
>of possible behaviours even more.
That's exactly true of today's Python, and always has been. Heck,
somebody can change a class' __bases__ at runtime, or change the
class of an object on the fly.
I don't think that anybody's saying that unrestricted use of dynamism
is good, or that it can't be abused. However, the potential for
abuse is no different. If anything, generic functions allow more
*structured* dynamism, because two different modules can safely add
methods to a function, instead of being tempted to reimplement and
More information about the Python-3000