On 23/04/07, Phillip J. Eby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Here you go: [...] > Any questions? :)
No :-) I really do think that putting this in a PEP as it is, would be a good start. > That's pretty much it, for the generic function part. The interface part > looks like the "recombinable interfaces" one I previously posted, where you > simply subclass Interface, and you don't have to write any adapter classes, > because the interface is its own adapter class. You just register methods > for stuff. Again, I'd argue for getting it in a PEP. > There are perhaps a few more details or features visible at this user > level, but all the "interesting" stuff (i.e. wizardry and defense against the > dark > arts) takes place under the hood. I don't see the harm in putting that in later - particularly if it means that the basic end user story is documented formally from the start in a PEP. If nothing else, it makes it easier for you to remind people that GFs are easy, without having to repeatedly post that example... :-) 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
