On Tue, 4 Jan 2005, Dave Brueck wrote:
It may be optional in the sense that the language will accept missing declarations but as soon as the feature is available it will become "mandatory" to use it (peer pressure, workplace practices).
What about generic programming coming into fashion anytime soon?
Roman, I think I've read every single thread in the past year or three wherein you've brought up generic programming, and I think you'd do well to choose a new term for the idea you're trying to convey.
The term "generic programming" is too... er... generic. :) As you know, Python already includes a _lot_ of support for generic programming (a function that iterates over a sequence can easily process a list, or a string, or a tuple as input; a function that takes a file-like object can often work just as will with a true file object or a cStringIO object; etc.). So when you bring up "generic programming", it's too easy to dismiss the comment because (1) it's too vague and (2) Python already does a lot of it.
So, what is your term for the type of generic programming that Python doesn't yet support? Interfaces? Protocols? Adapters? Metatype hierarchies?
-Dave -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
