[Jeremy Hylton] > - inherit from a class without implementing that class's interfaces > > - declare that a class implements an interface outside the class > statement I would like to add and restate my proposal to allow also for refering to anonymous super-interfaces of an interface in terms of the interface plus a subset of its signatures, also e.g. FileLike and just 'write'. [that means an interface can be thought to correspond to a set of (tag,signature) tuples, where tag identifies the interface, and one can also just consider subsets of it] I really think that such a feature would allow interfaces to better mix and match with how currently Python code is written. Or at least ease the transition from an interfaces-less world. This may seem YAGNI, but I clearly remember people stating (on types-sig) the need to refer to an interface of just the granularity of just file-like 'read' or just __getitem__. Having to name them is overkill, having to implement all the methods of an interface corresponding to a base Python type also. It is a burden to implement and may seem complex, but I feel, it matches how we code in Python - implementing e.g. just subsets of interfaces corresponding to a base Python type - and still allowing to have interface checking precision. regards.
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4