> Sounds like we ought to do a search-and-destroy on type comparisons, > replacing with isinstance() where possible. At least in my applications, this is unfortunately not possible: I want a test for byte-string-or-unicode-string. This could be done with two isinstance calls, but that is certainly less efficient. Marc-Andre once proposed a type representing the immediate supertype of both byte strings and unicode strings; let's call it abstract string. Then I could write isinstance(e, types.AbstractString). Regards, Martin
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