> All this brings to mind - is there actually a good reason to need a base > type? Why not just define baseinteger as: > > baseinteger = int, long > > if the only reason for it is to use isinstance? So that an extension author *could* write an int-like type deriving from it? --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