James Y Knight <foom at fuhm.net> writes: > There's a fair number of classes that claim they are defined in > __builtin__, but do not actually appear there. For example: "__builtin__" is the "I don't know" answer in type_module for non-HEAPTYPEs. I'm certainly not sure that's totally wise... > IMO classes ought to actually appear in __builtin__ if they claim they > are defined there. Doing otherwise breaks reflection, as you have to > add a special case for these class names to use the appropriate object > from the types module instead. Thoughts? If it isn't desirable to have > these names appear in __builtin__, perhaps their '__module__' should > be changed to another module where they are defined? Such as? There really isn't a module where e.g. GeneratorType is defined. Cheers, mwh -- 3. Syntactic sugar causes cancer of the semicolon. -- Alan Perlis, http://www.cs.yale.edu/homes/perlis-alan/quotes.html
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