On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 20:06:22 -0500, Phillip J. Eby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >My feeling here was not that people thought that stateless adapters > >were in general intrinsically better -- just when the adaptation was > >going to be done implicitly (e.g. by type declarations). > > Yes, exactly. :)
In which case, given that there is no concept in PEP 246 of implicit adaptation, can we please make a clear separation of this discussion from PEP 246? (The current version of the PEP makes no mention of transitive adaptation, as optional or required behaviour, which is the only other example of implicit adaptation I can think of). I think there are the following distinct threads of discussion going on at the moment: * Details of what should be in PEP 246 * Discussions spinning off from Guido's type-declaration-as-adaptation proposal * Discussion of what counts as a "good" adapter * Philip's new generic function / ducy typing proposals Is that even close to others' understanding? Just trying to keep my brain from exploding :-) 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
