[Python-3000] iostack and Oh Oh (original) (raw)

Guido van Rossum guido at python.org
Thu Dec 7 20:01:22 CET 2006

That sounds like a reasonable summary to me. One nit below.

On 12/7/06, Talin <talin at acm.org> wrote:

Phillip J. Eby wrote: > At 09:59 AM 12/5/2006 -0600, Guido van Rossum wrote: >> My point is that an interface can document (at least in English) a >> "contract" about the invariants between operations. While I'm not into >> enforcing or verifying such contracts, I'm very interested in >> documenting them. For example, something that has "mapping" behavior >> has a very different relationship between x[y] and "y in x" than >> something that has "sequence" behavior. > > I assumed this didn't need answering. If you're using the interface solely > for documentation, then a namespace-oriented interface suffices to provide it.

I'm guessing that Guido's use of the word 'document' means something more than just conveying information to a human reader. From what I can tell, the argument boils down to this: You are saying that a class is merely the sum of its attributes and methods, and Guido is saying that it's not. For example: You cannot deduce by examining the methods of a list that the keys are required to be consecutive integers starting from 0. Lists have getitem, but so do maps; They support len(), but so do maps; and so on. Thus, lists embody a particular behavior contract (called 'concept' in C++ template land). (The word 'interface' and 'ability' has been used in this context, but that's somewhat misleading. [1] [2]) The concept is supported by the methods of the class, but is only incompletely derivable from them. I think what Guido is looking for is a way to signal that a class obeys a given behavioral contract, and a way to inspect the object, both at runtime and to a human reader, and discover what contracts are supported by the class. On the other side of the argument is the fear that such explicitness will lead to Java-style type bureaucracy, and lead to the death of implicit, a la 'duck', typing. The response to that, I think, is that we're not looking to replace duck typing but only to supplement it - in other words, this extra information would only be used to convey that which is not derivable by inspection of types and methods. [1] The reason that I think 'ability' is misleading is because what we're really talking about is a disability - a limitation on what inputs a class can accept. Also, one tends to think of the abilities of a class as its methods, whereas what we're talking about here is a way to describe the relationships between the methods. [2] The reason I think 'interface' are misleading is due to its Java connotations, in which an interface is a description of a bunch of methods as well as a signal of an abstract type, but in this case I think what they want is only the contract signal and not the method declarations.

I don't see it this way. The methods are part of the contract -- the contract talks about specific methods and how they work together. I still believe this is also what Java interfaces are for, at least in the best of circumstances, like the collections framework (maybe I should ask Josh Bloch about this).

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

More information about the Python-3000 mailing list