[Python-3000] pep 3124 plans (original) (raw)

Guido van Rossum guido at python.org
Wed Jul 18 18:47:13 CEST 2007

On 7/17/07, Phillip J. Eby <pje at telecommunity.com> wrote:

At 01:37 PM 7/18/2007 +1200, Greg Ewing wrote: >Phillip J. Eby wrote: > > It allows the framework to bootstrap via successive > > approximation. Initially, the 'implies()' function is just a plain > > function, and then it later becomes a generic function. (And of > > course it gets called in between those two points.) The same happens > > for 'disjuncts()' and 'overrides()'. > >But you know from the outset that these functions will >eventually become generic, so why can't they be defined >as some callable object that can have its insides >switched, if you're on a Python whose normal function >objects don't allow that?

Well, phrased that way, it sounds like a justification for treating it as a porting strategy for such Pythons. The library could just use a "copycode(srcfunc, dstfunc)" function that's implemented differently on different Pythons.

Sorry, but I'm still totally uncomfortable with this. While I admit the feature exists, I really, really, really don't want it to be used on a regular basis. As long as Phillip calls a counterproposal "fingernails on a chalkboard", I call this unpythonic.

-- --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)

More information about the Python-3000 mailing list