[Python-Dev] PEP 246, redux (original) (raw)

Carlos Ribeiro carribeiro at gmail.com
Wed Jan 12 21:21:38 CET 2005

On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 10:16:14 -0800, Guido van Rossum <gvanrossum at gmail.com> wrote:

But now, since I am still in favor of automatic "combined" adaptation as a last resort, I ask you to consider that Python is not C++, and that perhaps we can make the experience in Python better than it was in C++. Perhaps allowing more control over when automatic adaptation is acceptable?

For example, inteface B (or perhaps this should be a property of the adapter for B->C?) might be marked so as to allow or disallow its consideration when looking for multi-step adaptations. We could even make the default "don't consider", so only people who have to deal with the multiple A's and/or multiple C's all adaptable via the same B could save themselves some typing by turning it on.

+1. BTW, I do use adaptation, including the 'lossy' one described in this scenario (where the mapping is imperfect, or incomplete). So having some way to tell the adaptation framework that a particular adapter is not suited to use in a transitive chain is a good thing IMHO. Generically speaking, anything that puts some control on the hands of the programmer - as long it does not stand in the way between him and the problem - is good.

-- Carlos Ribeiro Consultoria em Projetos blog: http://rascunhosrotos.blogspot.com blog: http://pythonnotes.blogspot.com mail: carribeiro at gmail.com mail: carribeiro at yahoo.com

More information about the Python-Dev mailing list