> > > > if the only reason for it is to use isinstance? > > > > > > So that an extension author *could* write an int-like type deriving > > > from it? > > > > But didn't you just say that people shouldn't be > > deriving their own int-like types from baseinteger? > > Indeed, in general they shouldn't. But for specialized purposes it > might be needed (that's why I emphasized *could*). I call YAGNI. We're talking about creating the class baseinteger which might be useful ONLY for people creating new kinds of integers in Python which will NOT extend int or long but WILL need to be treated just like integers. Who is really likely to do that? And if in the process we introduce a new class which won't be needed in the long run (ie Python 3000 has just one type, called "int" and has no need for baseinteger). So I maintain that it's not needed (and is, in fact, confusing to users) unless someone has a real use case. -- Michael Chermside
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