[Types-sig] Interface PEP

Samuele Pedroni Samuele Pedroni <pedroni@inf.ethz.ch>
Thu, 15 Mar 2001 23:12:49 +0100 (MET)


> because as far as I have understood: the semantic of the following definition
> is that:
> class A implements I:
>  ...
> should enforce through a check that A offers all the signatures required by I.
Sorry, I have reread the PEP, this is false, Could make sense but is
not required by the PEP.
> And conventionally expresses that A meet all of the implicit requirements
> (not at signature level) that come with I.

I have tried to understand both proposals,
IMHO the tentative to force a merging between the two 
(which could have contact point and find a way to interact properly)
is bringing just confusion.

I repeat: I see the following inclusion relations:

(Michel Pelletier) interfaces < protocols < domains
                             Paul Prescod "type" checking
then there is the question how should __check__ and isImplementedBy
interact wrt to runtime arg domain checking.

and the possibility that domains could be used to specify parameters "types"
in Michel Pelletier interfaces.

regards, Samuele Pedroni.

Note: in Objective-C interfaces are called protocols ;). Is just a matter
of picking your names.