> "contract" is a better term, IMO, since it's already used in CS (as in
> Eiffel), and describes the situation more correctly: *behavior* rather
> than *signature*.
> "ability" just doesn't seem right to me: my class is not *able* to be a
> set,
> it *behaves* like a set. it follows the set contra
Le samedi 25 novembre 2006 à 21:32 +0200, tomer filiba a écrit :
> "contract" is a better term, IMO, since it's already used in CS (as in
> Eiffel),
> and describes the situation more correctly: *behavior* rather than
> *signature*.
> "ability" just doesn't seem right to me: my class is not *abl
i'd suggest using the term "contract" instead of abilities or interfaces.
they way BDFL described it [1], abilities specify more than mere method
signatures -- they go as deep as how the implementation should implement
the desired behavior.
http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-3000/2006-Novembe
