guido at python.org wrote: >> 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? Fair 'nuff. Tim Delaney
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