A RetroSearch Logo

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

Search Query:

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2004-August/047913.html below:

[Python-Dev] Classes that claim to be defined in __builtin__ but aren't

[Python-Dev] Classes that claim to be defined in __builtin__ but aren't [Python-Dev] Classes that claim to be defined in __builtin__ but aren'tGuido van Rossum guido at python.org
Tue Aug 17 03:11:34 CEST 2004
> The real question seems to be whether __builtin__ should contain *all*
> built-in types, including internal ones, or only those intended for
> public use. Do you have an opinion about that, Guido?
> 
> I suppose it's reasonable to put them all in __builtin__, since as you
> say, they can be useful for type checking even if you can't or rarely
> want to instantiate them yourself.

That's where I stand, at about +0.5.  I don't think it's super
important that all builtins be particularly well-known or useful --
it's easy enough to have a section in the documentation for
"lesser-known builtins".

--Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)
More information about the Python-Dev mailing list

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