[Python-Dev] type categories

[Oren Tirosh]

On Thu, Aug 15, 2002 at 12:42:46AM +0200, Martin v. Loewis wrote:
> Oren Tirosh <oren-py-d@hishome.net> 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
type.

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 
useful.

> > 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.

Exactly.
 
> 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. 

	Oren