Talin wrote: > The other drawback is that there's a greater chance of a misspelling,
I don't think there is, really. It wouldn't be caught at compile time, but it would be caught very quickly at run time if you tried to initialise a type with a method flagged as "special" whose name wasn't one of the valid special method names. > You could go even further, and drop the "special" flag entirely, and > there's a compelling reason why you might want to do this: It means that > now the VM gets to decide what methods are special and what methods > aren't. No, that would be a bad idea. It would mean, for example, that *any* method called "next" would have to be assumed to potentially be the next() method of an iterator and forced to have the corresponding signature. (This is why I changed its name to __next__ in Pyrex. I suppose the same solution could be used here, if you were willing to accept the name that you put in the method table not necessarily being the name you use from Python.) -- 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
