[PEAK] Re: Persistence styles, MDA, AOP, PyProtocols, and PEAK

[Paul Moore]

Paul Moore <pf_moore at yahoo.co.uk> writes:

> "Phillip J. Eby" <pje at telecommunity.com> writes:

>> I'm speaking here of "multiple dispatch".  More specifically, I'm
>> talking about a kind of symmetric multi-dispatch that's closer in
>> nature to the kind found in the Cecil and Dylan programming languages
>> than what's in CLOS, but the basic idea is the same.
[...]
> Woo hoo. Not only a nice idea, but available now? Off to look at
> PyProtocols CVS...

Given the latest state of the decorators debate, what are your
thoughts on the list-before-def hack implemented in PyProtocols?
Clearly (I guess) users of Python 2.4 will be able to use "real"
decorators, albeit at the expense of not being backward-compatible.
Assuming that they do, will there be a cost for the mere existence of
the list-before-def hack? Maybe the list-before-def compatibility
syntax needs to be moved to a separate module, so that people who
don't need it don't pay a cost.

Or maybe there isn't a cost... But I recall mention of a trace hook
being involved - doesn't that execute code at least once per scope
entry?

As all of my applications are currently internal-use only, and tend to
be migrated to the latest releases very fast, I have little need for
backward compatibility - as you can probably tell from the tone of
this message :-)

Paul.
-- 
I don't know anything about music. In my line you don't have to. --
Elvis Presley