On 11/23/06, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 11/22/06, Calvin Spealman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > This whole thing seems a bit off from start to finish. A seperate > > definition syntax with a special name/expression weirdo thingy, etc. > > I have the same gut feelings but find it hard to explain why. > > But I've learned to trust my gut -- eventually it will come to me.
I agree entirely. The whole defop thing seems odd (and I *hate* the name "defop"). I fail to see what it gains over a decorator syntax such as is already available in the 3 generic function packages available (RuleDispatch/PEAK.Rules, simplegeneric, and Guido's version in the sandbox). Without defop, the proposal seems to boil down to sanctioning a standard library addition which provides a generic function package - *possibly* with some modification of existing standard library and builtin functions to become generics. I'm sure I'm missing something, because the proposal feels alternately overcomplex and trivial to me... Paul. _______________________________________________ Python-3000 mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-3000 Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-3000/archive%40mail-archive.com
