From: Robert Klemme <bob.news@...>
Date: 2005-01-14T23:21:18+09:00
Subject: Re: Duck Typing and automated Conversions


"gabriele renzi" <rff_rff@remove-yahoo.it> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:L1QFd.3723$fs6.84797@twister2.libero.it...
> Robert Klemme ha scritto:
>
> > Basically this is just a way to save typing.  Error reporting will be
the
> > same.  RDoc could evaluate this info and generate comments for this
> > automagically.
> >
> > Of course, any method could be invoked like this, maybe even with
> > parameters.  I haven't thouroughly thought about implications of that
fact
> > yet.
> >
> > Thoughs?
> >
>
> Yes, one. See RCR 280, add this, and you get quite far in replicating
> what mr van rossum is advocating as optional typing for python :) [1]
> With pre/post method hook as supposed to be in Ruby2, you get even
further.
>
> [1]only the last post, the "stop flames" one would recall this, ignore
> the other two.

Interesting.  Thanks for pointing that out!

Although the two suggestions are clearly related and can be combined,
they're completely orthogonal IMHO.  You can always have one without the
other.  Personally I'm not sure whether I like the idea of a type
conversion framework like that of RCR 280 mainly because I'm wary about
having this functionality not in classes affected.  You'll end up in a
situation where you can't rely on this because you neve know which
conversions are active.  I't seems bad for lib designers.  But that's
another discussion...

Kind regards

    robert