> I still think that depending on <...> reprs should be non-portable > and discouraged, also CPython is already rather whimsical in its own > evolution (Python 2.3): > > >>> class X: pass > ... > >>> X > <class __main__.X at 0x007E2C30> > >>> class X(object): pass > ... > >>> X > <class '__main__.X'> > >>> > > I may change my opinion if someone writes a (unit) test pinning down what > is exactly meant by that somewhat. That's a good point. I'll add a SF entry to request these unit tests. What you see as whimsical was actually done for compatibility reasons; the new-style classes look more like built-in classes, whose repr is <type 'int'> or perhaps <type 'module.C'>. (It says 'type' if it's pure C, 'class' if it was created by a Python class statement.) --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