> [GvR] > > [Ping] > > > If i may hazard a guess, i'd imagine that Jim's answer would simply be > > > that inheritance (of implementation) doesn't imply subtyping, and > > > subtyping doesn't imply inheritance. > > > > Well, yes, of course. But I strongly believe that in *most* cases, > > inheritance and subtyping go hand in hand. I'd rather invent a > > mechanism to deal with the exceptions rather than invent two parallel > > mechanisms that must both be deployed separately to get the full > > benefit out of them. [Samuele] > One exception being to able to declare conformance to an interface > after-the-fact in some sweet way. I've heard of people who add mix-in base classes after the fact by using assignment to __bases__. (This is currently not supported by new-style classes, but it's on my list of things to fix.) If that's not acceptable (it certainly looks questionable to me :-), I guess a separate registry may have to be created; ditto for deviations in the other direction (implementation inheritance without interface conformance). > E.g. > my ideas of declaring partial conformance and of super-interfaces > identified as a base-interface plus a subset of signatures do not > fit so well in a just-abstract-classes model. But OTOH I insist, > IMO, given how python code is written now, they would be handy > although complex. Yes, I'll have to think about that idea some more. It's appealing because it matches current Pythonic practice better than anything else. OTOH I want a solution that can be verified at compile time. --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)
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