On 7/17/07, Phillip J. Eby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > At 01:37 PM 7/18/2007 +1200, Greg Ewing wrote: > >Phillip J. Eby wrote: > > > It allows the framework to bootstrap via successive > > > approximation. Initially, the 'implies()' function is just a plain > > > function, and then it later becomes a generic function. (And of > > > course it gets called in between those two points.) The same happens > > > for 'disjuncts()' and 'overrides()'. > > > >But you know from the outset that these functions will > >eventually become generic, so why can't they be defined > >as some callable object that can have its insides > >switched, if you're on a Python whose normal function > >objects don't allow that? > > Well, phrased that way, it sounds like a justification for treating > it as a porting strategy for such Pythons. The library could just > use a "copy_code(srcfunc, dstfunc)" function that's implemented > differently on different Pythons.
Sorry, but I'm still totally uncomfortable with this. While I admit the feature exists, I really, really, really don't want it to be used on a regular basis. As long as Phillip calls a counterproposal "fingernails on a chalkboard", I call this unpythonic. -- --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/) _______________________________________________ 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
