Op 2005-12-15, Ben Sizer schreef <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > Antoon Pardon wrote: >> Op 2005-12-15, Ben Sizer schreef <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > >> So? I answered a question. That my answer is not usefull for >> a specific purpose is very well prosible but is AFAIC irrelevant. > > The point being made was that your declarations such as these: > > int: a > object: b > > would break the original idea (a module containing a sum() function > that can take any object that has an addition operator).
1) a declaration as object: b Wouldn't break the original idea, since b would be basically a python object as it is now. 2) Sure a declaration as int: a would break the original idea, but that was just given as an example of what kind of declarations one might possibly use. You are not obligated to use declarations that limits you so much. > Inheritance > isn't good enough in this situation. I apologise if that isn't what you > were answering, but that seems to have been the thread context. No I wasn't answering that. I was just trying to give an idea from a different angle. People seem to think that one uses static typing or inheritance typing or duck typing. IMO the possibility of inheritance typing doesn't have to prevent duck typing. -- Antoon Pardon -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
