Phillip J. Eby wrote: > Yep, that was my theory too, until I actually used generic functions.
Is there something about generic functions that makes them different from methods in this regard? I've used OO systems which have the equivalent of @before, @after etc. for overriding methods, and others (including Python) which don't, and I've never found myself missing them. So I'm skeptical that they're a must-have feature for generic functions. > 1) a lot more pleasant not to write the extra boilerplate all the time, I'd work on that by finding ways to reduce the boilerplate. Calling the next method of a generic function shouldn't be any harder than calling the inherited implementation of a normal method. > By the way, if you look at the PEP, you'll find motivating examples for > each of the decorators, There are examples, yes, but they don't come across as very compelling as to why there should be so many variations of the overloading decorator rather than a single general one. > IIRC, CLOS has about *8 more* kinds of method combinators CLOS strikes me as being the union of all Lisp dialects that anyone has ever used, rather than something with a coherent design behind it. So quoting CLOS is not going to make me think better of anything. -- Greg _______________________________________________ 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
