At 08:48 PM 3/12/2007 -0600, Steven Bethard wrote: >On 3/12/07, Phillip J. Eby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > For maybe 80-90% of the purposes that I originally created PyProtocols for, > > I have found that "simplegeneric" ( > > http://cheeseshop.python.org/simplegeneric/ ) is more than adequate -- and > > it's only 80 lines of code. > >I believe the correct URL is: > http://cheeseshop.python.org/pypi/simplegeneric/
Oops. > > Of course, generic functions require you to say 'foo(bar)' instead of > > 'bar.foo()' (and IIUC, that's the big sticking point for Guido wrt to GF's > > in Py3K). > >Yeah, I'd be happy to see things like ``len()`` and ``iter()`` become >generic functions like these (they're already most of the way there) >but I'm not sure I'm ready to start writing ``dict.update(d, ...)`` >instead of ``d.update(...)``. If you *know* you're using a dict, then of course d.update() is preferable. But wouldn't it be *nice* if you *could* call dict.update(d, ...) on anything that had a __setitem__? :) _______________________________________________ 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
