On 11/23/06, Phillip J. Eby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > At 05:55 PM 11/23/2006 +0000, Paul Moore wrote: > >On 11/23/06, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I'm reposting this under a different subject because the other subject > > > seems to have gone off on a tangent. The rest are Phillip's words. > >[...] > > > >OK, I've read and tried to digest this. It looks good. The one thing > >I'm still not getting, at a very concrete level, is precisely what > >changes are required to Python to make it work. > > No changes as such, just additions:
Hmm, I'm not getting my question across (but that's OK, you answered anyway). From my POV, additions are changes - if you like, I'm trying to imagine what a diff between current Python and your proposal would look like. > 1. defop, addmethod/__addmethod__, maybe hasmethod/__hasmethod__ > 2. some generic function implementation that can be applied to "normal" > Python functions Um, isn't (1) a generic function implementation that can be applied to Python functions? > No changes in semantics to "def". I'm just saying that you have to be able > to call: > > addmethod(a_function, methodfunc, a_class) OK. So under your proposal, all Python functions are (potentially) generic, and addmethod is how you add extra overloads? (And hasmethod is pretty obvious, and defop AFAICT is a syntax for addmethod, is that right?) Did I get that right? Paul _______________________________________________ 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
