At 07:57 AM 4/23/2007 -0700, Guido van Rossum wrote: >That's okay. We won't be able to consider GFs for 3.0a1, but the whole >library reorg thing will be done later, so I expect adding GFs later >(to the library) will also be okay. I do hope that you'll stay with us >while I barrel forward with the ABC PEP. I see no serious >incompatibilities between GFs and ABCs, so I don't believe I should >hold it up just because your proposal is late; but there is time to >tweak the details to avoid gratuitous friction between the two >mechanisms.
Yeah, I don't see any issues there at all; the only places I can think of right now where there's even any overlap with non-library stuff is GF @abstract with ABC @abstractmethod, and the possibility of having the default metaclass (i.e., 'type') support an "implements" keyword argument. And all of the stuff I'm proposing (except for argument annotation support) has been implemented before in either PEAK-Rules or PyProtocols, so it's mostly a matter of things like getting rid of bytecode hacks, and making sure the spec can be implemented in other Python interpreters. (PyPy should have no problems, but I don't know enough about Jython or IronPython to be able to say the same for them.) _______________________________________________ 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
