> At the risk of sounding like a broken record -- doesn't protocol > adaptation stand out as a good way to package up such a "standard > tool"? Why should we keep inventing a variety of different ways to > ask the same kind of service -- "Here is an object X, please return > it or a wrapper on it in such a way that it satisfies protocol Y, if > possible"...? Protocol adaptation sounds like a great reason to be very conservative in inventing other ways to address such problems. I don't see protocol adaptation go into Python 2.3. As Tim channeled me just after I went on vacation, it's such a tremendous change in how users will view things that we need to be conservative in introducing it. I would encourage experimenting with protocol adaptation though. Maybe the next steps would be to (a) revise the PEP and (b) produce a more usable reference implementation as a 3rd party package? I think Alex is in a great position to become co-author of PEP 246. --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