Quality of life macro for generic functions

Hello there!
im currently using something like this in my project (please ignore the specifics, i want to share the general idea without ripping it out of the context that sparked the idea):

macro_rules! concrete_ordinal_encoding {
    ($typename: ident, $pymodule: ident) => {
        paste::item! {
            #[pyfunction]
            fn [< ordinal_encoding_$typename >]<'py>(py: Python<'py>, labels: Vec<$typename>) -> &'py PyArray1<usize> {
                ordinal_encoding(labels).into_pyarray(py)
            }
            $pymodule.add_function(wrap_pyfunction!([< ordinal_encoding_$typename >], $pymodule)?)?;
        }
    };
}

So, naturally, i wondered: is it a good idea to turn it into some sort of concrete_function!() macro to specialize generic functions to interface with python? on the python side, it could be implemented with an object with __getitem__ or __getattr__ to resolve what specific function to call.
Do you think it is worth a dependency? Do you think this approach smells nice enough to be included in pyo3?

Start from the shown concrete_ordinal_encoding! macro and assess how a concrete_function! macro could specialize generic functions for Python. Consider the proposed Python-side getitem or getattr resolution and whether this belongs in PyO3 or requires a dependency. Done means reaching a clear decision on the API and scope.