[Python-3000] PEP 3124 - Overloading, Generic Functions, Interfaces, etc. (original) (raw)

Steven Bethard steven.bethard at gmail.com
Thu May 10 04:43:07 CEST 2007

On 5/9/07, Phillip J. Eby <pje at telecommunity.com> wrote:

At 02:41 PM 5/9/2007 -0600, Steven Bethard wrote: >On 4/30/07, Phillip J. Eby <pje at telecommunity.com> wrote: >>Proceeding to the "Next" Method >>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >[snip] >>"Before" and "After" Methods >>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >[snip] >>"Around" Methods >>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >[snip] >>Custom Combinations >>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > >I'd rather see all this left as a third-party library to start with. >(Yes, even including proceed.)

That'd be rather like adding new-style classes but not super().

Ok, then leave proceed in. I'm not really particular about the details -- I'm just hoping you can cut things down to the absolute minimum you need, and provide the rest in a third party module. As it is, I think there's too much in the PEP for it to be comprehensible. And @before, @after, etc. seemed like good candidates for being supplied later.

Meanwhile, for the rest of the features, most of the implementation would still have to be in the core module.

That's fine. I'm not worried about the implementation. I trust you can handle that. ;-) I'm worried about trying to pack too much stuff into a PEP.

Meanwhile, leaving in the ability to have method combination later, but removing the actual implementation of the @before/around/after decorators in place would delete a total of less than 40 non-blank lines of code.

Sure, but it would also delete huge chunks of explanation about something which really isn't the core of the PEP. Python got decorators without the 6 lines of functools.update_wrapper -- I see this as being roughly the same. In particular, functools.update_wrapper was never mentioned in PEP 318.

>As others have mentioned, the current PEP is overwhelming. I'd rather >see Py3K start with just the basics. When people are comfortable with >the core, we can look into introducing the extras.

Naturally, I don't consider any of these items "extras", or I wouldn't have included them.

I understand that. I'm just hoping you can find a way to cut the PEP down enough so that folks have a chance of wrapping their head around it. ;-) I really do think something along these lines (overloading/generic functions) is right for Python. I just think the current PEP is too overwhelming for people to see that.

STeVe

I'm not in-sane. Indeed, I am so far out of sane that you appear a tiny blip on the distant coast of sanity. --- Bucky Katt, Get Fuzzy

More information about the Python-3000 mailing list