Nick Coghlan wrote: > In this case, it makes far more sense to me to move the adapter > registration out to the individual protocols.
That would alleviate some of my concerns as well. This seems more Pythonic: Namespaces are one honking... etc. > In a glorious fit of self-referentiality, one of the first things needed by > such an approach would be a protocol for the protocol interface that allowed > other protocol objects to register themselves as implementing it. This would > then allow the ever popular generic adaptation function to be written as: > > def adapt(obj, target_protocol): > return Protocol.adapt(target_protocol).adapt(obj) Surely the protocol protocol would be well-known enough that other protocols would simply be duck-typed to it, rather than having to be adapted to it? Also I prefer the idea of the protocol object being callable, so you just do target_protocol(obj) to do an adaptation. -- Greg Ewing, Computer Science Dept, +--------------------------------------+ University of Canterbury, | Carpe post meridiam! | Christchurch, New Zealand | (I'm not a morning person.) | [EMAIL PROTECTED] +--------------------------------------+ _______________________________________________ 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
