OO in Python? ^^

[bonono at gmail.com]

Alex Martelli wrote:
> <bonono at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Alex Martelli wrote:
> > > <bonono at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > > those convoluted templates that were added to the language as
> > > > > an afterthought.
> > > > I don't see this in Haskell.
> > >
> > > Well, historically templates HAVE been added to Haskell "as an
> > > afterthought" (well after the rest of the language was done), and
> > > judging mostly from
> > > <http://research.microsoft.com/~simonpj/papers/meta-haskell/meta-haskell
> > > .ps> it doesn't seem unfair to call them "convoluted"...
> > >
> > I think I was talking about the need to add templates in order for
> > writing generic functions that was mentioned(see the example given
> > about sum), not in the context you are talking about. You seem to have
> > skipped the other half of the text I quoted.
>
> Right, you can get good genericity with Haskell's typeclasses (I've
> posted about that often in the past, and desperately and so far
> unsuccessfully tried to convince Guido to use something close to
> typeclasses rather than "interfaces" for such purposes as PEP 246
> [protocol adaptation]); it's the state of _templates_ in Haskell,
> specifically, which I was rather dubious about (it may be that I just
> haven't dug into them deep enough yet, but they do seem not a little
> "convoluted" to me, so far).
>
Yup, the templates is an afterthought and the point of discussion by
Lispers(?) too. I have no idea what it is intended for, there must be
some need for it but definitely beyond what I can handle.