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

Paul Moore p.f.moore at gmail.com
Mon Apr 23 17:35:22 CEST 2007

On 23/04/07, Phillip J. Eby <pje at telecommunity.com> wrote:
> (It occurs to me that I should mention that, just like the relationship
> between 'type' and 'object' rarely matters unless you delve into
> metaclasses or other wizardry, so too am I referring here only to the
> wizard-level aspects of a generic function module, where my design allows
> for people to write their own dispatchers or interface implementations and
> plug them into the base module, using the same decorators and basic
> machinery.  Merely *using* generic functions and interfaces would of course
> be at least as simple as interfaces and static overloads in Java or C++ --
> that's *not* the part of the PEP that's hard to write.)

I wonder whether starting off with a PEP that omits or skims over the
wizard-level stuff would not actually be more use. If you already have
most of that PEP, why not publish it, with a section called something
like "Advanced Use" which for now is simply a "to be completed"

If the basic stuff really is that simple, I'd love to see just that
for now. It would put the advanced stuff into context when it finally


More information about the Python-3000 mailing list