On 20 July 2017 at 19:51, INADA Naoki <songofaca...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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? > > Unfortunately no, it was considered and rejected for various reasons (in particular to provide smooth transition to protocols). > > 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. > > This complexity is already there, and attempt to reduce might lead to actually an increase of complexity. This is probably the case where I would be with Raymond in terms of performance vs ease of maintenance. -- 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/
