RetroSearch Browse

Thu Aug 12 00:03:59 CEST 2004 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2004-August/047658.html

    >> I think this would be a good idea; maybe the name should be
    >> baseinteger?

    Michael> I would like to urge caution before making this change. Despite
    Michael> what the PEP may say, I actually think that creating a
    Michael> 'baseint' type is the WRONG design choice for the long term.  I
    Michael> envision an eventual Python which has just one type, called
    Michael> 'int'.

I agree.  I made a suggestion that we consider the entire tree of numeric
types, but I had int/long unification in the back of my mind as well.  I
will take /F's suggestion and poke around the peps when I have some time,
but I see no pressing reason a base integer class, however it's spelled,
needs to be added for 2.4.

Skip

Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2004-August/047658.html below:

[Python-Dev] Unifying Long Integers and Integers: baseint