I don't normally start threads, but I wasn't sure who to post this as a reply
to. This thought or direction of discussion, seems like it may be a useful
viewpoint in the type/interface topics.
Python's syntax interacts strongly with a number of basic types. For example
(and in general) a for loop requires something that can iterated. The * and **
require or produce lists and dictionaries when used in a function def or call
signature. The math operators need numerical types, or a sequence in the case
of '+'. The [:] notation indicates a slice object is used. The "", [], (),
and
{} return or consume specific types of objects. And of course there is the
common basic "object".
I'm wonder how many places in pythons syntax requires or produces specific
types. And if listing and organizing these commonly used "syntactically
necessary" types would be useful to determine the minimum list of ABC's. (More
can always be added later.)
One approach to a class tree is to list all the basic parts of possibly
commonly
used various objects and organize them in a tree such as how java has done. It
seems like that's not what we want from the discussion so far.
The approach suggested above, takes a much narrower view and would start by
what
is only currently necessary by the language's current syntax. These are places
where you may possibly need to test for type-ness.
I also wonder if there should be a distinction between a "language type"
object,
and a "data type" object. A language type object would express something
needed
by the language itself, where a data type object would be something used to
express or interact with information.
Cheers,
Ron
_______________________________________________
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
