Python evolution: Unease

[Roman Suzi]

On Tue, 4 Jan 2005, Ian Bicking wrote:

>Umm... this isn't helpful.  "Generic" and "concept" are not terms that
>belong to Boost or STL or whatever.  They are just words.  Coining the
>term doesn't mean anyone else knows what it means, nor that anyone
>*should* know what they mean -- personally I get very suspicious of
>ideas that are based on redefined words, that tends to be a way of
>hiding complexity or fuzziness.
>
>But anyway, if you use these terms, you really must provide references,
>otherwise no one will know what you mean.  "Python could have honest
>support of concepts" is simply an incomplete sentence.  "Python could
>have honest support of Concepts (url)" would be more reasonable.

Sorry. I use definitions from there sources:

 1. http://www.cs.rpi.edu/~musser/gp/

 2. "A Formalization of Concepts for Generic Programming"
(google could find PDF of that). If I am correct, this one:
http://www.osl.iu.edu/publications/pubs/2004/willcock04:_formal_concep_gener_progr.pdf

(it is safe to skip till example on Fig.1 to grasp the idea behind
a concept. Relations between concepts are also very logical and
remind of inheritance, association and aggregation)

 3. "The Boost Graph Library" by Jeremy Siek, et al with A.Stepanov's
foreword is a good way to see GP != STL.

 Probably Boost docs contain some knowledge on the topic, at least
Boost Graph Library's ones (which I read).


>"Python could have honest support of Concepts (url)"

- of course, right now those sources are C++-specific. But I could see that
Python has even greater potential to have concepts ahead of C++ and with
greater usefulness at the same time.


Sincerely yours, Roman Suzi
-- 
rnd at onego.ru =\= My AI powered by GNU/Linux RedHat 7.3