On 7/23/07, Phillip J. Eby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > At 11:58 AM 7/24/2007 +1200, Greg Ewing wrote: > >A class is defined in just one place, or a limited number > >of places if it has base classes. > > ...and may be subclassed in an unlimited number of places. > > A generic function is defined in just one place, with a limited > number of "generic" methods typically adjoining it, and may be > extended in an unlimited number of places. > > Where's the difference?
Phillip, you seem to be dead set on providing a mathematical proof that the two are equivalent. Unfortunately, my gut tells me otherwise, and it doesn't want to listen to mathematical proofs. It's like proofs of God's (non-)existence. They don't work unless you're already in agreement with the outcome. Fact is, many people, including me, are uncomfortable with the idea that a GF can be overridden *anywhere*. I am not letting that get in the way of acknowledging the value of GFs, but I don't think it's worth trying to take this fear away by attempting to prove that it is irrational. Irrationality, as the name implies, is not susceptible to rational argument. I could come up with several reasons why it's not the same at all, but I'm not going to bother, because it'll just encourage you to deny it even harder. I think the argument (from both sides) is irrelevant; you're wasting your valuable time and energy that would much better directed towards updating the PEP and writing an implementation. -- --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/) _______________________________________________ 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
