On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 10:35:39AM +0000, Paul Moore wrote: | One thing I feel is key is the fact that adaptation is a *tool*, and | as such will be used in different ways by different people. That is | not a bad thing, even if it does mean that some people will abuse the tool. | | Now, a lot of the talk has referred to "implicit" adaptation. I'm | still struggling to understand how that concept applies in practice, | beyond the case of adaptation chains - at some level, all adaptation | is "explicit", insofar as it is triggered by an adapt() call.
The 'implicit' adaptation refers to the automagical construction of composite adapters assuming that a 'transitive' property holds.
Maybe some folks are using the term that way; I use it to mean that in this code:
someOb.something(aFoo)
'aFoo' may be "implicitly adapted" because the 'something' method has a type declaration on the parameter.
Further, 'something' might call another method with another type declaration, passing the adapted version of 'foo', which results in you possibly getting implicit transitive adaptation *anyway*, without having intended it.
Also, if adapters have per-adapter state, and 'someOb.something()' is expecting 'aFoo' to keep some state it puts there across calls to methods of 'someOb', then this code won't work correctly.
All of these things are "implicit adaptation" issues, IMO, and exist even withoutPyProtocols-style transitivity. "Duck adaptation" solves these issues by prohibiting per-adapter state and by making adaptation order-insensitive. (I.e. adapt(adapt(a,B),C) should always produce the same result as adapt(a,C).)
_______________________________________________ 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
