Python evolution: Unease

[Roman Suzi]

On Tue, 4 Jan 2005, Dave Brueck wrote:

>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
>?

Yes.

>> 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.

I apologize for not providing URLs to the exact definitions in the first
place! I really think there is ONE understanding of GP vs. multitudes of
understandings of OOP.


Sincerely yours, Roman Suzi
-- 
rnd at onego.ru =\= My AI powered by GNU/Linux RedHat 7.3