On Sun, 2005-01-16 at 13:00 -0500, Phillip J. Eby wrote:
> """One type is the "extender", ...
> By contrast, an "independent adapter" ...
I really like the way this part of the PEP is sounding, since it really captures two almost, but not quite, completely different use-cases, the confusion between which generated all the discussion here in the first place. The terminology seems a bit cumbersome though.
I'd like to propose that an "extender" be called a "transformer", since it provides a transformation for an underlying object - it changes the shape of the underlying object so it will fit somewhere else, without creating a new object. Similarly, the cumbersome "independent adapter" might be called a "converter", since it converts A into B, where B is some new kind of thing.
Heh. As long as you're going to continue the electrical metaphor, why not just call them transformers and appliances? Appliances "convert" electricity into useful non-electricity things, and it's obvious that you can have more than one, they're independent objects, etc. Whereas a transformer or converter would be something you use in order to be able to change the electricity itself.
Calling views and iterators "appliances" might be a little weird at first, but it fits. (At one point, I thought about calling them "accessories".)
If nobody likes this idea, it would seem a bit more symmetric to have "dependent" and "independent" adapters, rather than "extenders" and "independent adapters". As it is I'm left wondering what the concept of dependency in an adapter is.
It's that independent adapters each have state independent from other independent adapters of the same type for the same object. (vs. extenders having shared state amongst themselves, even if you have more than one)
_______________________________________________ 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
