Phillip J. Eby wrote:
> If anything, generic functions give you *better* tools to work with,
> as there is no trivial way to fire up a program and say, "show me all
> the classes that have a foo() method." (You could probably write
> something to find them using object.__subclasses__, though,
Greg Ewing wrote:
> Phillip J. Eby wrote:
>> I don't think that anybody's saying that unrestricted use of dynamism is
>> good, or that it can't be abused. However, the potential for abuse is
>> no different.
>
> I'm not talking about abuse. I'm only talking about using
> GFs the way they're mea
At 12:07 AM 7/23/2007 -0700, Talin wrote:
>Phillip J. Eby wrote:
> > If anything, generic functions give you *better* tools to work with,
> > as there is no trivial way to fire up a program and say, "show me all
> > the classes that have a foo() method." (You could probably write
> > something to
At 11:09 PM 7/23/2007 +1000, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>And the big benefit here is that whatever techniques you come up with
>for searching for those overloads will work for *any* GF implemented
>using the same tools,
By the way, this is one of the reasons why it would be good to have a
relatively uni
I've submitted the following patch to fix test_pyexpat.py:
http://www.python.org/sf/1759016
Part of the fix was to remove the 'returns_unicode' attribute.
Should the updates to the documentation be added to this
patch or submitted as a separate patch?
Thanks,
-joe
--
Joe Gregorio
On 7/23/07, Joe Gregorio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've submitted the following patch to fix test_pyexpat.py:
>
> http://www.python.org/sf/1759016
>
> Part of the fix was to remove the 'returns_unicode' attribute.
> Should the updates to the documentation be added to this
> patch or submitte
Phillip J. Eby wrote:
> In order to follow things through with normal method calls, you have to
> know where a class is in the program, implying that you either search
> for it, or have read enough of the program to figure it out.
>
> Which of these two things is different with generic functions
At 11:58 AM 7/24/2007 +1200, Greg Ewing wrote:
>Phillip J. Eby wrote:
> > In order to follow things through with normal method calls, you have to
> > know where a class is in the program, implying that you either search
> > for it, or have read enough of the program to figure it out.
> >
> > Which
Phillip J. Eby wrote:
> And that is in fact the *normal* case, even in GF use. You seem to be
> arguing that possible == probable, when it simply ain't so.
No, I'm saying that it's hard to convince myself that I'm
not going to fall into one of the possible traps, even if
it's an improbable one.
At 12:54 PM 7/24/2007 +1200, Greg Ewing wrote:
>Phillip J. Eby wrote:
> > And that is in fact the *normal* case, even in GF use. You seem to be
> > arguing that possible == probable, when it simply ain't so.
>
>No, I'm saying that it's hard to convince myself that I'm
>not going to fall into one o
On 7/23/07, Phillip J. Eby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 11:58 AM 7/24/2007 +1200, Greg Ewing wrote:
> >A class is defined in just one place, or a limited number
> >of places if it has base classes.
>
> ...and may be subclassed in an unlimited number of places.
>
> A generic function is defined i
At 07:57 PM 7/23/2007 -0700, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>On 7/23/07, Phillip J. Eby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > At 11:58 AM 7/24/2007 +1200, Greg Ewing wrote:
> > >A class is defined in just one place, or a limited number
> > >of places if it has base classes.
> >
> > ...and may be subclassed in an
Phillip J. Eby wrote:
> I just don't see that the things Greg is describing aren't equally
> applicable to traditional methods.
I wasn't going to get into this, but - since you asked :)
The short form of the argument is that being able to overload any
function as a generic function retroactive
13 matches
Mail list logo
