ericsnowcurrently at gmail.com
Fri Aug 3 07:40:37 CEST 2012
On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 10:45 PM, Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan at gmail.com> wrote:
> Now, the interesting point here is that these are all things that
> can't easily be defined in a way that is open to *programmatic*
I hadn't thought of it in these terms, but deep down this is exactly
the itch that was making me squirm.
> Expanding the ABC descriptor lexicon to accurately describe those 4
> protocol variants (or at least some of them) in a base class may be
> worthwhile, but -1 on merely adding yet another variant.
Agreed on both counts. I think your example is along the right lines.
To be honest, I'll probably let this idea ruminate a while, but
you're explanation is meaningful right now. Thanks.
More information about the Python-ideas