[Python-3000] Generic function PEP won't make it in time (original) (raw)
Greg Ewing greg.ewing at canterbury.ac.nz
Thu Apr 26 03:07:13 CEST 2007
- Previous message: [Python-3000] Generic function PEP won't make it in time
- Next message: [Python-3000] Generic function PEP won't make it in time
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Paul Moore wrote:
My point was that as far as I am aware, Guido's current position on ABCs is that they are, and will remain, optional - people like myself (and Greg, from the sound of it) who don't want to derive from ABCs will not be penalised by being excluded from anything in the Python core or the stdlib.
Maybe not in the core or stdlib, but it seems like there will be cases where one is penalised for not using the ABCs, if they get used the way the PEP proposes.
From the PEP, it seems there are two purposes for these proposed ABCs:
- To document what is meant when we say that something is a "sequence", "mapping", etc.
This could be done simply by writing documentation. There is no need for anything embodied in the language.
- To mark a class for the purposes of introspection.
I thought we had generally agreed that this is an anti-pattern in Python. If I want my object to interoperate with someone else's code that tests for the presence of some ABC, then I am forced to use that ABC, even if it doesn't entirely suit my purposes.
I'm -1 on including anything in the language, stdlib or docs that appears to officially sanction type testing as a normal style of programming.
-- Greg
- Previous message: [Python-3000] Generic function PEP won't make it in time
- Next message: [Python-3000] Generic function PEP won't make it in time
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]