From: "Guido van Rossum" <guido@python.org>
> > A few weeks ago I realized there was reason in principle that
> ^^^^^^^^^^
> Did you mean "was no reason"???
>
> > declaring a class satisfies an interface shouldn't just amount to
> > adding the interface to the class' __bases__ (as Guido has been
> > suggesting all along).
> >
> > Why not? Am we missing somethings?
>
> We'd need a trick to deny an interface that would be inherited by
> default. Something like private inheritance.
I think it's more than that. You might need to "uninherit": Say Interface A
begets class B which begets class C. What if C doesn't fulfill A?
> There's also the ambiguity of inheriting from a single interface: does
> that create a sub-interface or an implementation of the interface?
> Of course with your C++ hat on you probably don't care. On Mondays,
> Wednesdays, Fridays and alternating Sundays I don't care either.
With my C++ hat on I can't even imagine this. In C++ we don't express
interfaces in code: they're written down as "concepts" in the some
documentation somewhere (no, I don't think an abstract class in C++ is a
good analogy for these Python interfaces).
-Dave
-----------------------------------------------------------
David Abrahams * Boost Consulting
dave@boost-consulting.com * http://www.boost-consulting.com
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