Greg Ewing wrote:
Paul Moore wrote:
I'd rather see a solution which addressed the
wider visitor use case (I think I just sprained my back bending over
backwards to avoid mentioning generic functions :-))
Speaking of generic functions, while thinking about the
recent discussion on proxy objects
Nick Coghlan wrote:
That's where the generic system itself needs to
be based on generic functions - then you can hook the lookup function so
that proxies get looked up based on their target type rather than the
fact they're a proxy. It all gets very brain bending and self
referential, which is
Greg Ewing wrote:
Nick Coghlan wrote:
I don't think it would actually be that much worse - something like
typetools.ProxyMixin would just involve a whole series of register
calls instead of method definitions. I wouldn't expect the total
amount of code involved to change much.
I'm not thinki
Nick Coghlan wrote:
I don't think it would actually be that much worse - something like
typetools.ProxyMixin would just involve a whole series of register calls
instead of method definitions. I wouldn't expect the total amount of
code involved to change much.
I'm not thinking about the __xxx_
Greg Ewing wrote:
Paul Moore wrote:
I'd rather see a solution which addressed the
wider visitor use case (I think I just sprained my back bending over
backwards to avoid mentioning generic functions :-))
Speaking of generic functions, while thinking about the
recent discussion on proxy objects
Paul Moore wrote:
I'd rather see a solution which addressed the
wider visitor use case (I think I just sprained my back bending over
backwards to avoid mentioning generic functions :-))
Speaking of generic functions, while thinking about the
recent discussion on proxy objects, it occurred to me
