[Python-3000] Generic function PEP won't make it in time

Phillip J. Eby pje at telecommunity.com
Mon Apr 23 17:26:23 CEST 2007

At 07:57 AM 4/23/2007 -0700, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>That's okay. We won't be able to consider GFs for 3.0a1, but the whole
>library reorg thing will be done later, so I expect adding GFs later
>(to the library) will also be okay. I do hope that you'll stay with us
>while I barrel forward with the ABC PEP. I see no serious
>incompatibilities between GFs and ABCs, so I don't believe I should
>hold it up just because your proposal is late; but there is time to
>tweak the details to avoid gratuitous friction between the two

Yeah, I don't see any issues there at all; the only places I can think of 
right now where there's even any overlap with non-library stuff is GF 
@abstract with ABC @abstractmethod, and the possibility of having the 
default metaclass (i.e., 'type') support an "implements" keyword 
argument.  And all of the stuff I'm proposing (except for argument 
annotation support) has been implemented before in either PEAK-Rules or 
PyProtocols, so it's mostly a matter of things like getting rid of bytecode 
hacks, and making sure the spec can be implemented in other Python 
interpreters.  (PyPy should have no problems, but I don't know enough about 
Jython or IronPython to be able to say the same for them.)

More information about the Python-3000 mailing list