Jim Jewett wrote: >> Sorry, but that was about as informative as a "+1" vote. > > I found it a bit more specific on two points: > > What I (mis?)read was: > > (1) > PJE: Interfaces rely on buyin; they end up accidentally creating > walled gardens. Generic Functions make fewer demands, so they start > to work sooner, and integrate better. [The down side is that finding > the relevant code -- or even being sure that it *is* is the relevant > code, and isn't overridden elsewhere -- gets more difficult. -jJ] > > Jonathan: Phillip has written a lot of long messages; this one point > is particularly important for the summary. It captures a (the?) key > advantage of generic functions.
I am glad that *someone* got what I was trying to say. Philip indeed writes long, informative messages. Its easy for little gems like this one go by unnoticed. I had not seen this relative merit of generic functions (and disadvantage of interfaces) discussed, so I responded with my agreement that this was very true for me in actual practice (not just in theory). > (2) > Generic Functions are harder to get your head around, but once you do, > they're worth it. Phillip has been saying this already, but it > matters that someone else has gotten to the point where they are > useful and seem simple. In fact, I used Philip's wonderful RuleDispatch module again just today to create something quite useful. I personally found generic functions to be quite easy to understand, but didn't truly begin to appreciate them until I started to use them. So, sure, it might have been a +1 vote, but it comes with the context that I have actually *used* both generic functions and interfaces in practice, and have found Philip's statement above to ring very true. -- Jonathan LaCour http://cleverdevil.org _______________________________________________ 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
