On 11/05/07, Greg Ewing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm now even more of the opinion that this is too > complicated for Python's first generic function system. > "If it's hard to explain, it's probably a bad idea."
Hmm. My view is that it *is* simple to explain, but unfortunately Phillip's explanation in the PEP is not that simple explanation :-( In my view, too much of the PEP is taken up with edge cases, relatively obscure specialist uses, and unnecessary explanations of implementation details. However, I haven't had any time recently to review it in enough detail to offer a concrete proposal on how to simplify it, so I've kept quiet so far. I would argue that the PEP could be *very* simple if it restricted itself to the basic idea. Much of what is being discussed is, in my view, implementation detail - which Phillip finds compelling because it shows the power of the basic approach, but which is turning others off because it's more complex and subtle than a basic use case. There are many features in Python which are powerful and simple on the surface, but get quite gory when you delve beneath the covers (new-style classes, decorators, generators, for example). That doesn't mean they shouldn't be there. Paul. _______________________________________________ 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
