[Python-Dev] type categories

[Samuele Pedroni]

[GvR]
> [Ping]
> > If i may hazard a guess, i'd imagine that Jim's answer would simply be
> > that inheritance (of implementation) doesn't imply subtyping, and
> > subtyping doesn't imply inheritance.
>
> Well, yes, of course.  But I strongly believe that in *most* cases,
> inheritance and subtyping go hand in hand.  I'd rather invent a
> mechanism to deal with the exceptions rather than invent two parallel
> mechanisms that must both be deployed separately to get the full
> benefit out of them.

One exception being to able to declare conformance to an interface
after-the-fact in some sweet way.

> > > Agreeing on an ontology seems the hardest part to me.
> >
> > Indeed.  One of the advantages of separating inheritance and subtyping
> > is that this can give you a bit more flexibility in setting up the
> > ontology, which may make it easier to settle on something good.
>
> Really?  Given that there are no inheritance relationships between the
> existing built-in types, I would think that you could define an
> ontology consisting entirely of abstract types, and then graft the
> concrete types on it.  I don't see what having separate interfaces
> would buy you.  But perhaps you can give an example that shows your
> point?
>

E.g.
my ideas of declaring partial conformance and of super-interfaces identified as
a base-interface plus a subset of signatures do not fit so well in a
just-abstract-classes model. But OTOH I insist, IMO, given how python code is
written now, they would be handy although complex.

regards.