Guido van Rossum <guido@python.org> writes: > There are doubts about its usefulness. (AKA YAGNI.) Would you also > provide implementations for common object types? Otherwise there > wouldn't be a point, right? Not really, IMO. It is an interface, not an implementation (except that there are 3 helper functions in abstract.c). I have patches ready for string and unicode objects (trivial), and started a patch for arrayobject. This is more involved, because the array must be locked while a buffer pointer is out somewhere. I could also implement it for mmap objects, there are comparable issues. Maybe the most useful object type would be the upcoming bytes object (PEP 296). It seems, this will not be included in 2.3, but it could also be implemented as a separate extension - impossible for the locked buffer interface, which must be included into the core. If you call YAGNI, it's ok for me, that's why I'm asking. Better save the time in this case... Thomas
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