PEP 245

[Carlos Alberto Reis Ribeiro]

At 16:29 01/04/01 -0700, Alex Shindich wrote:
>I do not want to restart the whole discussion on the difference between
>base classes and interfaces, but I am of the opinion that they both
>represent an is-a relationship.

Almost... base classes represent an "is-a" relationship. Interface 
implementation represent an "work-as" relatioship (if there is anything 
like this :-).

>Arguably, this behavior is already available through runtime method
>binding.

That's right. I was just saying that I prefer it to stay this way.

>This makes interfaces to be as good as doc strings...

In a sense, yes. In a dynamic typed language almost nothing is enforced; 
there's the language syntax and nothing else. The documentation is the last 
resort. Readability also helps a lot. If the interface support makes for 
more readable code, then I'm all for it, if just for this reason.


Carlos Ribeiro