fijall at gmail.com
Wed Nov 17 07:32:54 CET 2010
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 1:24 AM, Dan Stromberg <drsalists at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 8:38 AM, <exarkun at twistedmatrix.com> wrote:
>> On 04:27 pm, drsalists at gmail.com wrote:
>> >On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 4:17 AM, Antonio Cuni <anto.cuni at gmail.com>
>> >>Sounds fine, do you feel like implementing it? :-)
>> >>Moreover, I also agree with amaury that your code is very similar to
>> >>one in the current dbm.py, so we should maybe try to refactor things
>> >>share common parts between the twos.
>> >I'd be happy to.
>> >Would sharing based on inheritance or a more functional approach be
>> No, avoid inheritance where possible. Composition is preferred.
> Due to performance? Or "flat is better than nested" - as more of a
> philosophical issue? I'm not arguing for inheritance, just wanting to
> understand the reasoning behind it.
I think one of the points is that those are originally not related in
CPython. And someone somewhere *will* use this and complain. People do
crazy stuff with Python.
>> As for "functional", I don't really know what approach you're describing
>> with that word.
> I mean something like what you'd do in Lisp, ML or Haskell (not that I know
> any of those that well). I suppose in this case it would mean
> functools.partial() as a decorator, or perhaps a wrapper around
> functools.partial() used as a decorator.
> Then again, maybe functools.partial() imposes its own performance penalty?
> That's part of why I'm wondering if avoiding inheritance is a
> performance-related goal.
> pypy-dev at codespeak.net
More information about the Pypy-dev