> 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... Well, I have no personal need for it. If you're the only one, that sounds like a big YAGNI to me... --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)
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