[Python-3000] pep 3124 plans

[Guido van Rossum]

On 7/17/07, Phillip J. Eby <pje at telecommunity.com> wrote:
> At 01:37 PM 7/18/2007 +1200, Greg Ewing wrote:
> >Phillip J. Eby wrote:
> > > It allows the framework to bootstrap via successive
> > > approximation.  Initially, the 'implies()' function is just a plain
> > > function, and then it later becomes a generic function.  (And of
> > > course it gets called in between those two points.)  The same happens
> > > for 'disjuncts()' and 'overrides()'.
> >
> >But you know from the outset that these functions will
> >eventually become generic, so why can't they be defined
> >as some callable object that can have its insides
> >switched, if you're on a Python whose normal function
> >objects don't allow that?
>
> Well, phrased that way, it sounds like a justification for treating
> it as a porting strategy for such Pythons.  The library could just
> use a "copy_code(srcfunc, dstfunc)" function that's implemented
> differently on different Pythons.

Sorry, but I'm still totally uncomfortable with this. While I admit
the feature exists, I really, really, really don't want it to be used
on a regular basis. As long as Phillip calls a counterproposal
"fingernails on a chalkboard", I call this unpythonic.

-- 
--Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)