[Python-3000] Discussions with no PEPs
steven.bethard at gmail.com
Tue Mar 13 03:48:19 CET 2007
On 3/12/07, Phillip J. Eby <pje at telecommunity.com> wrote:
> At 02:14 PM 3/12/2007 -0400, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> >The question then becomes whether we really want to invent a third
> >way of doing interfaces in Python, or whether our time is better
> >spent selecting and promoting one of the existing, tried-and-true
> >packages. Perhaps it would be better for us to figure out how and if
> >the two packages can be integrated. If a third way is still
> >advocated, then I think it must have a fairly high barrier to
> >acceptance in order to push aside such long accepted libraries.
> Personally I think both packages are overkill for the language and/or
> stdlib, if only because they're solutions for the wrong problem. (Note
> that PEPs 245 and 246 were rejected for related reasons.)
> For maybe 80-90% of the purposes that I originally created PyProtocols for,
> I have found that "simplegeneric" (
> http://cheeseshop.python.org/simplegeneric/ ) is more than adequate -- and
> it's only 80 lines of code.
I believe the correct URL is:
Nice, clear examples with this BTW.
> Of course, generic functions require you to say 'foo(bar)' instead of
> 'bar.foo()' (and IIUC, that's the big sticking point for Guido wrt to GF's
> in Py3K).
Yeah, I'd be happy to see things like ``len()`` and ``iter()`` become
generic functions like these (they're already most of the way there)
but I'm not sure I'm ready to start writing ``dict.update(d, ...)``
instead of ``d.update(...)``.
I'm not *in*-sane. Indeed, I am so far *out* of sane that you appear a
tiny blip on the distant coast of sanity.
--- Bucky Katt, Get Fuzzy
More information about the Python-3000