> I thought the plan was to get rid of all the special case code in the > interpreter for multiplying sequences and push it all down into > methods of the objects concerned, i.e. all sequences, including the > built-in ones, would implement the C equivalent of both __mul__ and > __rmul__ if they wanted to support multiplication on both sides. > > Is there some reason why that wouldn't work? Or is it just that > nobody has had time to fix all the built-in sequences to work > this way? It would be a lot of work, and I expect that for 3rd party extension types (and possibly for 3rd party Python classse) it wouldn't be quite compatible. I want it to work this way in Python 3.0, but I don't know if it's worth reworking all that tedious detail in the 2.x series. (Understanding that 3.0 is a few years away still.) --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