On 20 Jan 2005, at 12:07, Guido van Rossum wrote:
The first problem is what I'd call incomplete duck typing.
Confit de canard-typing?
--
Jack Jansen, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, http://www.cwi.nl/~jack
If I can't dance I don't want to be part of your revolution -- Emma
Goldman
__
Phillip, it looks like you're not going to give up. :) I really don't
want to accept your proposal into core Python, but I think you ought
to be able to implement everything you propose as part of PEAK (or
whatever other framework).
Therefore, rather than continuing to argue over the merits of you
[Guido van Rossum]
> There's one other problem that Phillip tries to tackle in his
> proposal: how to implement the "rich" version of an interface if all
> you've got is a partial implementation (e.g. you might have readline()
> but you need readlines()). I think this problem is worthy of a
> solut
At 03:07 AM 1/20/05 -0800, Guido van Rossum wrote:
Phillip worries that solving this with interfaces would cause a
proliferation of "partial sequence" interfaces representing the needs
of various libraries. Part of his proposal comes down to having a way
to declare that some class C implements some
On Thu, 2005-01-20 at 11:07, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> I'd also like to explore ways of creating partial interfaces on the
> fly. For example, if we need only the read() and readlines() methods
> of the file protocol, maybe we could declare that as follows::
>
> def foo(f: file['read', 'readline
[Phillip J. Eby]
> I've revised the draft today to simplify the terminology, discussing only
> two broad classes of adapters. Since Clark's pending proposals for PEP 246
> align well with the concept of "extenders" vs. "independent adapters", I've
> refocused my PEP to focus exclusively on adding
