> I think I agree with Raymond on the basic principle that simple ABC's > are easier to use than simple ones. I don't think he was saying that. He was saying that simple ABC's are easier to implement to. It's not at all clear to me that simple ABC's are good in and of themselves. I think a String ABC should probably include all the methods that basestring provides, perhaps by reducing the methods that basestring provides, and moving the removed methods to the String ABC, with implementations that call the methods provided by basestring. That way, String classes could be implemented by overriding the "base" set of methods, but still inherit from String to get the other methods. But, then, isn't basestring the true simple ABC for strings? Bill
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