On Tue, 5 Jun 2001, Guido van Rossum wrote: > Now invoke the Zen of Python: "There should be one-- and preferably > only one --obvious way to do it." So why not make these built-in > functions *be* the corresponding types? Then instead of +1 > - Do we really want to have built-in names for code objects, traceback > objects, and other figments of Python's internal workings? I would say to put all of the common constructors in __builtin__, and all of the odd ducks can go into the new module. > - What should the argument to dict() be? A list of (key, value) > pairs, a list of alternating keys and values, or something else? A varargs list of (key,value) tuples would probably be most useful. Since most of these functions, before being classed as constructors, were considered coercion function, I wouldn't be against having it try to do something sensible with a variety of args. -- sdm
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