Alex Martelli wrote: > Rather, look (e.g.) at copy_reg for the typical > kludge that's used to reimplement that crucial design pattern that is > adaptation, over and over and over again.
I don't see what copy_reg has to do with adaptation. What does it adapt, and to what? You seem to be talking about adaptation as if it were a general way of mapping a class to anything else at all. We already have one of those, it's called a dict. Also, design patterns don't usually have any generic implementation, and that's okay. It's the reason they're called *design* patterns. > just little hope that adaptation will actually > make it into the language in any 2.* release > (for no good reason). The fact that many people are unconvinced by the case made for it so far seems like a good reason to me. -- Greg _______________________________________________ Python-3000 mailing list Python-3000@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-3000 Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-3000/archive%40mail-archive.com
