Guido van Rossum wrote:
> I note that at least for built-in types there will be the naming
> convention that concrete implementation classes are all lowercase,
> like int, float, list, namedtuple, defaultdict, and so on, while the
> ABCs all have a Capitalized[Words] name: Hashable, Number, Real,
> MutableMapping, etc.
That's a very good point. I also suspect that for any actual 2.6/3.0
code base I end up working with there will only be a very limited number
of abstract base classes that get tested for via isinstance - so the red
flag for isinstance checks would be types I didn't already recognise as
being abstract base classes.
Cheers,
Nick.
--
Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan at gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia
---------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.boredomandlaziness.org
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