[Types-sig] Type/class unification

Tim Peters tim_one@email.msn.com
Sun, 29 Nov 1998 17:42:53 -0500


[Vladimir Marangozov]
> ...
> It's quite unclear to me, even after the 50 types-sig messages
> that landed in my inbox, what an (optional) Python interface is,
> and why should I feel happier if the Scarecrow (or another)
> formula is implemented in some way,

Well, I expect just about everyone feels that way -- except for JimF, who
seems to know exactly what he wants from interfaces and hasn't budged the
width of a mosquito's eyelash since this started.

> given the actual implementation of Python's classes.  Obviously,
> there's some need out there that I don't really understand and there
> are limitations in Python that prevent solving the problem easily.

I expect we'll understand Jim's view much better when he releases his
implementation.  Having something concrete to poke at should be a huge
clarifier regardless.

> ...
> An aside: An interesting pointer appeared in c.l.py about a language
> called Ruby which has some nice properties. IMHO it worths a look at the
> implementation. (Here's a comment from a file "object.c" that bootstraps
> the Ruby Universe:
>
>     /*
>      * Ruby's Class Hierarchy Chart
> ...

OTOH, from the Ruby reference manual (Class.html):

    To tell the truth, each class have the unnamed class (which
    is the meta-class of the class), the class Class is the class
    of these meta-classes. It is complicated, but it is not
    important for using Ruby.

*That's* sure encouraging <wink>.

wake-me-up-in-two-years-ly y'rs  - tim