At 11:31 AM 5/10/2006 -0700, Bill Janssen wrote: > > Which makes them inferior to existing adaptation systems for Python, which > > in turn are inferior to generic functions. > >"Inferior" according to some belief system you obviously feel strongly >about.
According to a very straightforward definition which I've previously supplied in another email. >Personally, I think that Python's type system is fine as it is, and >that there are more pressing issues, but I have no objection to your >improving it, so long as you don't break it. Many people (including Guido, IIRC) have pointed out the severe limitations of your proposal, but you keep ignoring them. As far as I can tell, it is you who has proposed to break Python's type system by eliminating attribute-based duck typing and replace it with inheritance markers. _______________________________________________ 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
