Phillip J. Eby wrote: > If anything, generic functions give you *better* tools to work with, > as there is no trivial way to fire up a program and say, "show me all > the classes that have a foo() method." (You could probably write > something to find them using object.__subclasses__, though, at least > for new-style types.)
I'm glad we're having this conversation - this is the kind of thing I want to hear more of. The intention of my posts is not to argue against GFs, but to challenge the proponents of GFs to explain themselves better. However, GFs are relatively non-controversial compared to method combinations and some of the other "advanced" stuff. Getting some kind of GF support into 3.0 is a near certainty at this point, if I have judged the situation rightly. So you need not waste too much ink defending them. I would focus more on the stuff that's built on top of GFs. -- Talin _______________________________________________ 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
