Ben <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: ... > It seems to me that a lot of python projects reimplement interfaces or > adaption of some kind once they reach a certain size (Zope, PEAK, eggs, > TurboGears, etc), which implies that they really do have some benefits, > particularly in documentation.
PEAK is an interesting counterexample, particularly since Philip Eby tends to be "ahead of the curve": it appears that he's determined that ``generic functions'' (with ``multimethods'') are a superior approach, and seems to have convinced Guido to the point that GFs are the alternative being actively explored for Py3k. I will admit that, while still undecided, I'm halfway-convinced enough not to mourn for PEP 246. ((It's possible to implement protocols, a la PyProtocols and as advocated in PEP 246, in terms of GFs, or viceversa; in PEAK, it's GFs-in-terms-of-protocols for strictly historical reasons, but the advantage along various axes seems to be to the protocols-in-terms-of-GFs camp; since protocols are a strict superset of interfaces...)) BTW, this _could_ be seen as yet another case of "reimplementing LISP", since Lisp/CLOS was always based on GFs/multimethods...;-). Alex -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
