On Thu, 23 May 2002, Guido van Rossum wrote: > > 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. No, I won't just wait and see. Do we want a development model where everyone is satisfied to wait to see what gifts magically arrive in the next release? No thank you, Mr. Gates. > 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. I have a hard time seeing how the types module can be replaced by anything substantively different. Its sole purpose is not complex: to be a container of type names and type objects. Clearly, it is not the best API for many tasks, but it is a standard one that is widely used. So if there is something better to be done, we should create a new module and be clever there. Moving right along, -Kevin -- Kevin Jacobs The OPAL Group - Enterprise Systems Architect Voice: (216) 986-0710 x 19 E-mail: jacobs@theopalgroup.com Fax: (216) 986-0714 WWW: http://www.theopalgroup.com
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