On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 1:24 AM, Dan Stromberg <drsali...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 8:38 AM, <exar...@twistedmatrix.com> wrote: >> >> On 04:27 pm, drsali...@gmail.com wrote: >> >On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 4:17 AM, Antonio Cuni <anto.c...@gmail.com> >> >wrote: >> >>Sounds fine, do you feel like implementing it? :-) >> >> >> >>Moreover, I also agree with amaury that your code is very similar to >> >>the >> >>one in the current dbm.py, so we should maybe try to refactor things >> >>to >> >>share common parts between the twos. >> >I'd be happy to. >> > >> >Would sharing based on inheritance or a more functional approach be >> >preferred? >> >> No, avoid inheritance where possible. Composition is preferred. > > Due to performance? Or "flat is better than nested" - as more of a > philosophical issue? I'm not arguing for inheritance, just wanting to > understand the reasoning behind it.
I think one of the points is that those are originally not related in CPython. And someone somewhere *will* use this and complain. People do crazy stuff with Python. > >> >> As for "functional", I don't really know what approach you're describing >> with that word. > > I mean something like what you'd do in Lisp, ML or Haskell (not that I know > any of those that well). I suppose in this case it would mean > functools.partial() as a decorator, or perhaps a wrapper around > functools.partial() used as a decorator. > > Then again, maybe functools.partial() imposes its own performance penalty? > That's part of why I'm wondering if avoiding inheritance is a > performance-related goal. > > > _______________________________________________ > pypy-dev@codespeak.net > http://codespeak.net/mailman/listinfo/pypy-dev > _______________________________________________ pypy-dev@codespeak.net http://codespeak.net/mailman/listinfo/pypy-dev