Python evolution: Unease

[Dave Brueck]

Roman Suzi wrote:
>>The term "generic programming" is too... er... generic. :)
> 
> 
> Nope. It is not generic. It has it's definition made by the co-author
> of STL - A.Stepanov. And the Boost C++ library (many of us know it as
> Boost Python) standardise on the approach, AFAIK.

Ok, "too broad" then; Python already supports at least some aspects of generic 
programming (at least, in the sense that I think you mean it), so it'd be good 
to spell out what specific features you're referring to.

> Python could have honest support of concepts. Everything else will be
> available with them.

"Concepts" is a pretty generic term too! ;-) Do you mean concepts as defined 
here: http://www.boost.org/more/generic_programming.html
?

> And BTW, are we really disputing? 

No, not at all - I'm just trying to better understand what you mean. Words like 
"generic" and "concepts" don't yet have a widely recognized, strict definition 
in the context of programming. If somebody has assigned some specific definition 
to them, that's great, it's just not universal yet so references and additional 
explanations are helpful.

-Dave