>>>>> "AM" == Alex Martelli <aleax@aleax.it> writes:
AM> Right -- "i inherit the implementation but none of the
AM> interfaces". You can express this either by appropriately
AM> tagging the "I inherit" part, as C++ does (private inheritance
AM> -- the default, but that's yet _another_ C++ issue... defaults
AM> that may or may not be appropriate for typical use!-), or with
AM> a variation of "exclude-interfaces" however you spell that.
AM> Alternatively, "I inherit" could default to "not the
AM> interfaces", and, if needed, one might add a clause "oh, and
AM> all the interfaces too, please" when that is positively
AM> desired. Maybe the default would best be chosen on the basis
AM> of "what is good for them" rather on "what appears most
AM> desirable intuitively", as is currently done for module
AM> imports.
I don't know, it seems like 6-one-way, half-dozen-the-other, but I
tend to agree with Guido on this one.
AM> Defaulting to "i inherit all" is roughly as convenient as
AM> defaulting to "from amodule import *" would be felt to be by
AM> naive users unfamiliar with the issues of namespace pollution.
Interface conformance seems totally different than name importing, so
I don't think the analogy holds. I just feel that in Python, I rarely
use inheritance for implementation convenience only.
-Barry
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