On Tue, 4 Jan 2005, Dave Brueck wrote: >Roman Suzi wrote: >>>The term "generic programming" is too... er... generic. :)
>> Nope. It is not generic. It has it's definition made by the co-author >> of STL - A.Stepanov. And the Boost C++ library (many of us know it as >> Boost Python) standardise on the approach, AFAIK. > >Ok, "too broad" then; Python already supports at least some aspects of generic >programming (at least, in the sense that I think you mean it), so it'd be good >to spell out what specific features you're referring to. > >> Python could have honest support of concepts. Everything else will be >> available with them. > >"Concepts" is a pretty generic term too! ;-) Do you mean concepts as defined >here: http://www.boost.org/more/generic_programming.html >? Yes. >> And BTW, are we really disputing? > >No, not at all - I'm just trying to better understand what you mean. Words >like "generic" and "concepts" don't yet have a widely recognized, strict >definition in the context of programming. If somebody has assigned some >specific definition to them, that's great, it's just not universal yet so >references and additional explanations are helpful. I apologize for not providing URLs to the exact definitions in the first place! I really think there is ONE understanding of GP vs. multitudes of understandings of OOP. Sincerely yours, Roman Suzi -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] =\= My AI powered by GNU/Linux RedHat 7.3 -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
