[Python-Dev] type categories
Thu, 15 Aug 2002 04:40:13 -0400
On Thu, Aug 15, 2002 at 12:42:46AM +0200, Martin v. Loewis wrote:
> Oren Tirosh <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > Nope. For me protocols are conventions to follow for performing a certain
> > task. A type category is a formally defined set of types.
> ODP (Reference Model For Open Distributed Processing, ISO 10746)
> defines that a type is a predicate; it implies a set (of which it is
> the characteristic function).
A type is a predicate about an object. A category is a predicate about a
Objects have a type. References have a category.
Well, Python references currently all have the 'any' category because
Python has no type checking. Any Python reference may point to an object
of any type.
In a dynamically typed language there is no such thing as an 'integer
variable' but it can be simulated by a reference that may only point to
objects in the 'integer' category.
> It is not so clear that this is what defines the iterable category. It
> could also be defined as "the programmer can use to for doing
> iteration, by means of the iterable protocol".
Your definition is not formal and cannot be evaluated by a program.
The iterable category matches the set of types implementing the iterable
protocol with reasonable accuracy. It doesn't have to be perfect to be
> > Protocols live in documentation and lore. Type categories live in the same
> > place where vector spaces and other formal systems live.
> By that definition, I'd say that Andrew's list enumerates protocols,
> not type categories: they all live in lore, not in a formalism.
> For being a pure function, requiring that it does not trigger Python
> code seems a bit too restrictive.
That's not a formal requirement, it for robustness and efficiency.