PEP 318: Can't we all just get along?

Dan Sommers me at privacy.net
Wed Aug 18 19:20:21 CEST 2004


On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 08:35:21 -0400,
Paul Morrow <pm_mon at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Dan Sommers wrote:

>> In the face of ambiguity, refuse to guess.
>> Explicit is better than implicit.

> Good conventions prevent ambiguity.

>     class Foo:
>        def method1(self, a, b): pass       # clearly an instance method
>        def method2(cls, a, b): pass        # clearly a class method
>        def method3(a, b): pass             # clearly a static method

    class Bar:
        def method4( _, b ): pass            # clearly a method
        def method5( klass, b ): pass        # clearly something else
        def method6( uovo, b ): pass         # clearly an Italian program(mer)

> When declarations conflict with conventions, it makes us wonder what
> the author really intended.

I agree completely.  I have often noted that when a comment doesn't
match the code, they are *both* wrong.

If we wonder what the author intended, what should Python do?

>> 
>> I think that the idea that started this thread is just right:
>> 

> You're right, this thread is about decorators, not about more
> opportunities for dynamic typing.  I just wanted to remind us that
> decorators are a lot like static typing, which isn't terribly
> pythonic.

I readily admit that my background is static typing:  BASIC, FORTRAN,
assembly, C, etc.; my (arguably naïve) lisp and Python programs are
devoid of most of the dynamic typing I see here on c.l.p.  OTOH, does
anyone want/need "dynamic decorators"?  Is there a real use case for
code like this?

    class C:
        def m( self ): pass
        m = decorate( m )

    decorate = some_function
    c1 = C( )

    decorate = another_function
    c2 = C( )

Regards,
Dan

-- 
Dan Sommers
<http://www.tombstonezero.net/dan/>
Never play leapfrog with a unicorn.



More information about the Python-list mailing list