At 05:42 PM 1/10/05 -0500, Bob Ippolito wrote: >On Jan 10, 2005, at 16:38, Phillip J. Eby wrote: > >>At 07:42 PM 1/10/05 +0100, Alex Martelli wrote: >> >>>On 2005 Jan 10, at 18:43, Phillip J. Eby wrote: >>> ... >>>>I am not saying we shouldn't have a tp_conform; just suggesting that it >>>>may be appropriate for functions and modules (as well as classic >>>>classes) to have their tp_conform delegate back to >>>>self.__dict__['__conform__'] instead of a null implementation. >>> >>>I have not considered conformance of such objects as functions or >>>modules; if that is important, >> >>It's used in at least Zope and PEAK; I don't know if it's in use in Twisted. > >SVN trunk of Twisted (what will be 2.0) uses zope.interface. What I meant was, I don't know if Twisted actually *uses* interface declarations for modules and functions. It has the ability to do so, certainly. I was just saying I didn't know if the ability is actually used. PEAK uses some interfaces for functions, but I don't think I've ever used them for modules, and can think of only one place in PEAK where it would make sense to declare a module as supporting an interface. Zope policy is to use interfaces for *everything*, though, including documenting the interface provided by modules.
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