Re: [Numpy-discussion] [Python-3000] PEP 31XX: A Type Hierarchy for Numbers (and other algebraic entities)
![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/4b9f9219928e8fcefe689b2846977d35.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
On 4/30/07, Bill Janssen <janssen@parc.com> wrote:
+1 for Guido's simplified PEP. There are clearly use cases for @abstractmethod, __isinstance__() and __issubclass__(), so I see no reason why the simplified PEP shouldn't be acceptable on its own. Complaining about "adding mechanism without content" seems like saying, for example, that we shouldn't have introduced "functools.partial" without *using* it somewhere in the standard library. Whether the use cases are in the standard library or somewhere else should not determine whether a PEP is acceptable or not. I personally think the simplified PEP is a great compromise -- proponents of ABCs will now be able to introduce them (even for existing types like 'int' and 'list') and folks that don't want ABCs can simply never install the ABC module. Plus, it's much easier to *add* a module to the standard library than it is to *remove* one (even given Python 3.0's somewhat laxer first release plans). STeVe -- 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
participants (1)
-
Steven Bethard