On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 12:12 AM, Ivan Levkivskyi <levkivs...@gmail.com> wrote: > To be honest, I am not very happy with addition of a new special class. > Imagine that the PEP 544 will be accepted (and I hope so). > Then we would have, abstract classes, abstract base classes, and protocols. > I think users will be overwhelmed by having > three similar concepts instead of one.
Hmm, couldn't split protocol and ABC? Of course, existing ABCs should be ABC for backward compatibility. But any reason to force using ABCMeta for user defined classes? I hate subclassing ABC because concrete classes which mix-in some ABC are forced to use it. > > I think we still could squeeze a lot of performance from good old ABCs by > optimizing various parts and reimplementing some parts in C. > In fact, my desire to optimize and rewrite ABCMeta in C is partially due to > reluctance to add yet another concept of "abstractness". > Even if it's implemented in C, issubclass implementation is much complicated than normal type. I don't want to introduce unnecessary complexity because I'm minimalist. Regards, > -- > Ivan > > > _______________________________________________ > Python-ideas mailing list > Python-ideas@python.org > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas > Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/ > _______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list Python-ideas@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
