> From: Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 246, redux > > I'm wondering if someone could do a similar thing for PEP 245, > interfaces syntax? Alex hinted that it's a couple of rounds behind the > developments in Zope and Twisted.
Nothing implements 245, which is just about the syntax,
The comment Guido's alluding to was mine; I was referring to PEP 245's use of '__implements__', and the difference between what a "class implements" and an "instance provides". Twisted and Zope's early implementations just looked for ob.__implements__, which leads to issues with distinguishing between what a "class provides" from what its "instances provide".
So, I was specifically saying that this aspect of PEP 245 (and Guido's basing a Python interface implementation thereon) should be re-examined in the light of current practices that avoid this issue. (I don't actually know what Zope currently does; it was changed after I had moved to using PyProtocols. But the PyProtocols test suite tests that Zope does in fact have correct behavior for instances versus classes, because it's needed to exercise the PyProtocols-Zope interop tests.)
I like implements, but any spelling works for me. "implements" strikes me as an elegant counterpart to "interface" and risks minimal breakage. Can we still import and say "implements()" for b/w compatibility and for those of us who do want an explicit statement like that?
If I understand Guido's proposal correctly, it should be possible to make a backward-compatible 'implements()' declaration function. Maybe not *easy*, but certainly possible.
_______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
