> Further, the expectation of real-live Python users is that it will > contain the boolean type. This is not an academic argument for me, > and likely for many others. We have large code bases that use the > types module, and expect the module to rigorously track new types > until something better is fully implemented, stable, and the old > module is properly depricated. Why don't you wait and see what shows up in Python 2.3 when it is released. It's good that we're arguing about this now -- we should offer something to replace all features of the the types module in 2.3. --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