On 2005 Jan 10, at 23:19, Phillip J. Eby wrote:
...
> As I said, after more thought, I'm actually less concerned about the
> performance than I am about even remotely encouraging the combination
> of Liskov violation *and* concrete adaptation
As per other msg, abstract classes have just the same issues as
concrete ones.
If Ka-Ping Yee's idea (per Artima cmts on BDFL blog) of having
interfaces supply template methods too ever flies, the issue would
arise there, too (a BDFL comment with a -1 suggests it won't fly,
though).
> targets. But, if "after the dust settles" it turns out this is going
> to be supported after all, then we can worry about the performance if
> need be.
>
> Note, however, that your statements actually support the idea of *not*
> adding a special case for Liskov violators. If newer code uses
> interfaces, the Liskov-violation mechanism is useless. If older code
> doesn't have __conform__, it cannot possibly *use* the
> Liskov-violation mechanism.
Adding __conform__ to a class to raise a LiskovViolation when needed is
a TINY change compared to the refactoring needed to use
template-methods without subclassing.
Alex
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