Phillip J. Eby wrote: > At 03:16 PM 7/24/2007 -0700, Guido van Rossum wrote: > >>I'm confused why you spend so much time refuting the argument, > > The purpose was to capture the arguments on both sides for posterity > as part of the PEP.
I don't think you need to spend so many words on the argument itself -- a one-paragraph summary would be enough. The parts outlining recommended practice for overloading look useful, though. This is the sort of thing I was after with my "What methodology can I follow?" question. But I would phrase it in an "It is recommended that..." kind of way rather than making assertions about what "can be found" in code (that doesn't exist yet in Python). > For example, epydoc and pydoc contain functions that inspect the type > of their arguments in order to decide what to with them. While it's > arguable that in a GF world, the authors *should* have made those > functions overloadable, it isn't reasonable to expect everyone to > rewrite their code to make everything overloadable, nor to correctly > anticipate every function for which extension might be needed. However, given the existence of GFs, someone writing something like pydoc, and coming to a point where he is about to write an if-else statement that switches on a type, perhaps ought to at least suspect that it might be a good idea to use a GF instead? -- Greg _______________________________________________ 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
