David Abrahams writes: > 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... It definately matters. Alex Martelli writes: > 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). I agree. The current somewhat-vague plan is to add a new section parallel to the section on built-in functions that lists the built-in types exposed in the __builtin__ module. This would make it easier to describe these types and their ability to be subclassed in a more rational manner than in their current location. Placeholder entries will be maintained for the function entries so people accustomed to looking in the current location won't be completely lost. -Fred -- Fred L. Drake, Jr. <fdrake at acm.org> PythonLabs at Zope Corporation
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