[Types-sig] Re: [Doc-SIG] Sorry!

Paul Prescod paul@prescod.net
Wed, 15 Dec 1999 19:02:00 -0800

Edward Welbourne wrote:
> The only interface definition mechanism I can see needed is the one that
> lets us specify the analogue of C structures and function types - that
> is, the equivalent of a typedef.  One interface thus defined can be
> deployed for several objects that support it - this does not mean that
> we have to have a separate *file* in which to say it, let alone a
> separate file in which to re-iterate the specification of the interface
> for each of the files which defines an export which matches that
> interface.

Who said anything about a separate file for every interface? The
benefits of the shadow files have been documented in other messages
including those in the thread "Shadow File Opinions" and "Progress" and
"Interface Files". You said that static type checking was ugly to start
with so I would have thought that you would prefer a proposal that
separated the type declarations from your code. This is one of the
reasons I like this strategy: to comfort those that didn't want static
types in Python code.

 Paul Prescod  - ISOGEN Consulting Engineer speaking for himself
Three things to be wary of: A new kid in his prime
A man who knows the answers, and code that runs first time