On Jul 25, 2013, at 6:51 PM, Matt Haggard <haggar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I have a few thoughts: > > First, how does this hypothetical system for specifying return types solve > the original problem (that user-written methods on TestCase pass unexpectedly > when a non-Deferred is returned)? If I'm the one writing test_whatever, with > the proposed doc string method for specifying return type, then wouldn't I > need to write a docstring that specifies the return type as Deferred? > All of this follows quite obviously if you just consider that a functional specification document (in other words, the generalization of the docstring) is simply a partial bijective homomorphism over the orbifold of possible runtime states (into the Hilbert space with a boundary defined by the NxM coordinate matrix of all possible intersections of sets of bugs and non-bugs of course). > Second, I don't love the idea of the docstring changing how a function > behaves... I like that it's a free form blob of text. I think I'd rather see > decorators used for this purpose. > It's not so much changing how the function behaves but rather what its behavior is. In any case, there's a great paper which offers an excellent theoretical background that should explain what I mean by that distinction, and should really elucidate some of the other threads in this conversation as well: <http://isotropic.org/papers/chicken.pdf> Hope that clears things up, -glyph
_______________________________________________ Twisted-Python mailing list Twisted-Python@twistedmatrix.com http://twistedmatrix.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/twisted-python
