Nigel Rantor wrote:
Jean-Michel Pichavant wrote:
Your solution will work, for sure. The problem is that it will dumb
down the Base class interface, multiplying the number of methods by
2. This would not be an issue in many cases, in mine there's already
too much meaningful methods in my class for me to add artificial ones.
Thanks for the tip anyway.
I suggest you reconsider.
You asked a question and have been given a standard way of achieving
the desired outcome.
It's common in OO to use a Template pattern like this.
If you're not interested in finding out how loads of people have
already solved the problem then why ask?
The methods that require overriding can be prefixed with an underscore
so that people get a hint that they are an implementation detail
rather than part of the public interface.
I don't see your problem, other than a vague aesthetic unease.
Regards,
n
I understand how refuting some obvious solution may look just stupid.
You're right, I shouldn't have asked.
By the way I'd like to know if I am I alone to find that
class Stream:
def start
def stop
def reset
is better than
class Stream:
def start
def _start
def stop
def _stop
def reset
def _reset
(try to figure out with 20+ methods)
What you call aesthetic may sometimes fall into readability.
JM
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
