> > If we need a place to name types that don't deserve being builtins,
> > perhaps new.py is a better place?
>
> The new. prefix is natural enough for
>
> m = new.module('name')
>
> type but it looks pretty awkward in
>
> if isinstance(obj, new.generator):
>
> What's the meaning of 'new' in this context?
Sometimes you ask too many questions. :-)
Let's just say that this is a historically available name. I don't
expect that isinstance(obj, generator) is a very common question to
ask, so I don't mind if you have to ask it in a somewhat awkward way.
> The idea of using the types module turned out to have more problems than
> appeared at first but new doesn't look much better to me.
Using new.py looks much better to me because it already works.
--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