On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 00:33:22 +0100, Alex Martelli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > But adaptation is not transmission! It's PERFECTLY acceptable for an > adapter to facade: to show LESS information in the adapted object than > was in the original. It's PERFECTLY acceptable for an adapter to say > "this piece information is not known" when it's adapting an object for > which that information, indeed, is not known. It's only CONJOINING the > two perfectly acceptable adapters, as transitivity by adapter chain > would do automatically, that you end up with a situation that is > pragmatically undesirable: asserting that some piece of information is > not known, when the information IS indeed available -- just not by the > route automatically taken by the transitivity-system.
[Risking putting my head above the parapet here :-)] If you have adaptations A->B, B->C, and A->C, I would assume that the system would automatically use the direct A->C route rather than A->B->C. I understand that this is what PyProtocols does. Are you mistakenly thinking that shortest-possible-route semantics aren't used? Maybe the PEP should explicitly require such semantics. If I'm missing the point here, I apologise. But I get the feeling that something's getting lost in the discussions. Paul. _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
