[Raymond Hettinger] > [RH] > > > How about adding some mixins to simplify the > > > implementation of some of the fatter interfaces? > This is a spur-of-the-moment thought, so it might not be a reasonable comment, but do we care that all of these methods will show up in when using dir() or any other introspective check? While I think the idea is great, it might give this sense that they are really, truly implemented for the class instead of reliant on the other implementations; the side effects of changing one of the required methods might have unexpected consequences for the user. But since I think this is a great idea, I don't want to see it disappear because of this; I guess I better solve my issue. =) Perhaps we can just make sure that this gets documented in both the API and in the doc strings saying that it is from the mixin and what methods it is dependent upon. That should be enough to squash my worry. And yes, if this gets into the core and Raymond does not want to do it, I will help with the doc patches. -Brett C.
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