On Monday 30 September 2002 02:36 am, David Abrahams wrote: > I note that > http://www.python.org/dev/doc/devel/lib/built-in-funcs.html#l2h-14 > describes dict as a built-in function, whereas we all know that Guido's > cool 2.2 changes made it into a type > > >>> dict > > <type 'dict'> > > Does this distinction matter? A little, I think. Calling it a function > makes it sound like we're living in the past. Same goes for str, type, > list, tuple, et. al. I realize that the type (especially <type 'type'>) > acts like a function under many circumstances... Trying to cover both 2.1 and 2.2 in the coming Nutshell, I've resorted to periphrases such as "the built-in dict" or "the dict built-in" (the latter uses "built-in" as a noun, I'm not yet sure the editor will let that go by). I've also tried to use 'callable' systematically instead of 'function' wherever other callables (types, bound-methods, etc) can be substituted in lieu of functions. In documenting 2.2 or 2.3 only, I think such hedging is not warranted. It's important, when feasible, to clarify what built-ins are types -- a type has MORE functionality than a function, after all (in particular, one can subclass it, while one can't subclass a function). Alex
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