Bill Janssen wrote: > The use of standard base types (interfaces) > is basically a communications mechanism that lets functionality > designers easily tell users of their functionality what's needed.
But it's a blunt tool, because it arbitrarily lumps together sets of functionality that often are not required in their entirety. Unless you break the interfaces down to the level of single methods, in which case you might as well just document which methods are required -- as we do now, and it seems to work fairly well. > Checking for some textual attributes of a > type Now you're talking about LYBL, which is generally considered an anti-pattern in Python. APIs should be designed so that you don't need to test for the presence of features. > I think that lots of folks aren't exactly uncomfortable with it. > It's more that they see it as a blemish on what's otherwise a pretty > good language... They > contribute suggestions about how to remove the necessity for it But this is a fundamental difference of opinion about what is desirable and what is not. From what you've said, they see duck typing as a necessary evil, something to be put up with. Whereas the rest of us see it as a *good* thing that rescues us from the hell of having to tediously declare all our interfaces and variable types. These are opposite and irreconcilable points of view, as far as I can see. -- Greg _______________________________________________ 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
