[Guido] > Thanks for reminding me of what my original motivation was for using > repr(). I am also still annoyed at some extension writers who violate > the rule, and design a repr() that is nice to look at but lies about > the type. ... Back when this was a hot topic on c.l.py (there are no new topics <0.1 wink>), it was very clear that many did this to class __repr__ on purpose, precisely because they wanted to get back a readable string at the interactive prompt (where a *correct* repr may yield a megabyte of info -- see my extended examples from that thread with Rationals, and lists of Rationals, and dicts w/ Rationals etc). In fact, at least one Python old-timer argued strongly that the right thing to do was to swap the descriptions of str() and repr() in the docs! str()-should-also-"pass-str()-down"-ly y'rs - tim
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4