On 4/29/07, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 4/29/07, Jim Jewett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 4/29/07, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Hmm... Maybe the conclusion to draw from this is that we shouldn't
> > > m
On 4/29/07, Steven Bethard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 4/29/07, Talin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > If it were technically possible, I would recommend that this PEP have to
> > run the same gauntlet that any other large library addition would, which
> > is to go through a long period of commun
On 4/29/07, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hmm... Maybe the conclusion to draw from this is that we shouldn't
> make Ring a class? Maybe it ought to be a metaclass, so we could ask
> isinstance(Complex, Ring)?
Yes; all the ABCs are assertions about the class. (Zope interfaces do
s
On 4/25/07, Jeffrey Yasskin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> class MonoidUnderPlus(Abstract):
Is this useful? Just because two things are both Monoid instances
doesn't mean I can add them -- they have to be part of the same
Monoid. By the time you do
assert isinstance(a, MonoidUnderPlus)
