Guido van Rossum wrote: >'str' and 'string' have to be separate because the whole point is that >isinstance(u"", string) returns True. > I understand that. I was just expressing that the names are awfully semantically close for the newbie. >We could rename string to basestring? > That'd be better, IMO -- or even "strings", "anystring" or "string_interface" <wink/>. >>Do we want string to be both the module and the interface >>masquerading as a type? >> >> >That would *almost* work (string.lower could be an unbound method that >calls the corresponding real class method) except string.join() would >have the arguments reversed. :-( > Cute. >>[Trent gets the credit for asking the question -- I'm just the tester =)] >> >> > >Trent needn't be so shy. :-) > > Trent wasn't shy, he was just too lazy to update and rebuild to test, while I have paperwork to do so anything is more interesting. --da
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