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

Paul Moore p.f.moore at gmail.com
Mon Apr 23 18:50:06 CEST 2007

On 23/04/07, Phillip J. Eby <pje at telecommunity.com> wrote:
> Here you go:
> Any questions?  :)

No :-)

I really do think that putting this in a PEP as it is, would be a good start.

> That's pretty much it, for the generic function part.  The interface part
> looks like the "recombinable interfaces" one I previously posted, where you
> simply subclass Interface, and you don't have to write any adapter classes,
> because the interface is its own adapter class.  You just register methods
> for stuff.

Again, I'd argue for getting it in a PEP.

> There are perhaps a few more details or features visible at this user
> level, but all the "interesting" stuff (i.e. wizardry and defense against the dark
> arts) takes place under the hood.

I don't see the harm in putting that in later - particularly if it
means that the basic end user story is documented formally from the
start in a PEP. If nothing else, it makes it easier for you to remind
people that GFs are easy, without having to repeatedly post that
example... :-)


More information about the Python-3000 mailing list