GvR writes: > On 5/5/06, Bill Janssen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Is there anywhere else in Python where the type of an object isn't > > > > checkable with isinstance()? > > > > > > Yes, it's called duck typing. > > > > And, in my opinion, it's probably worth stomping out in Py3K. It > > developed as necessary because of the original dichotomy between C > > classes and Python classes in Python 1, but it's now obsolete. > > Mix-ins should be used instead. > > You want to get rid of all duck typing? That doesn't sound right to > me. Anyway it isn't enforceable. I must be misunderstanding you.
Yes, I meant "get rid of all duck typing". Duck typing is for languages that can't do any better. It's a weakness, not a strength. Sure, it isn't enforceable (now, anyway), and I'm not sure I'd want it to be (in Python). But I think that the base language should be defined terms of classes, many of which would be functional mixins, rather than by which method names are or are not present in an instance. That is, "isinstance" should work properly everywhere with the built-in and standard library types. Bill _______________________________________________ Python-3000 mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-3000 Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-3000/archive%40mail-archive.com
