> The way I read these, the behavior of an implementation of these > functions isn't really open-ended. It ought to follow certain > conventions, if you want your type to behave sensibly. And that's > about as strong as any legislation I've seen anywhere in the Python > docs. Note the qualification: "if you want your type to behave sensibly". You can interpret the paragraphs you quoted as explaining what makes a good sequence or mapping. IOW they hint at some of the invariants of those protocols. But I wouldn't call this legislation. > Of course I do; I never expected otherwise. Like most of my other > suggestions, this is a case of "OK, whatever you say Guido... but as > long as people are interested in discussing the issues I'd like them > to understand my reasons for bringing it up". Maybe I should just tune out of this discussion if it's only of theoretical importance? --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