On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 5:51 PM, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have no idea what you are saying here (and I did s/since/sense/ :-).
Another lesson to me, that I should proofread my Python impulses: :P
Especially because of that I think we should do that. list, dict, and set
aren't metaclasses, so it would make sense to make that name change.
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 3:34 PM, Benjamin Peterson
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 5:20 PM, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 3:03 PM, Amaury Forgeot d'Arc <
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 11:57 PM, Paul Prescod <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > > But does anyone else find it odd that the types of some things
> are
> > > > > classes and the classes of some things are types?
> > > > >
> > > > > >>> type(socket.socket())
> > > > > <class 'socket.socket'>
> > > > > >>> type("abc")
> > > > > <type 'str'>
> > > > > >>> socket.socket().__class__
> > > > > <class 'socket.socket'>
> > > > > >>> "abc".__class__
> > > > > <type 'str'>
> > > > >
> > > > > In a recent talk I could only explain this as a historical
> quirk. As
> > I
> > > > > understand, it is now possible to make types that behave
> basically
> > > > > exactly like classes and classes that behave exactly like types.
> Is
> > > > > there any important difference between them anymore?
> > > >
> > > > I can find one difference:
> > > > - types are written in C
> > > > - classes are written in Python
> > > >
> > > > and there is a difference in behaviour:
> > > > most types don't have a writable __dict__, and you cannot add
> members.
> > > > classes are more flexible.
> > >
> > > That's more correctly described as the difference between built-in
> > > types/classes and user-defined types/classes.
> > >
> > > I think it's still just a historical quirk; maybe we should bite the
> > > bullet and fix this in py3k. (Still, 'type' and 'class' will both be
> > > part of the language, one as a built-in function and metaclass, the
> > > other as a keyword.)
> > Especially because of that I think we should change. list, dict, and set
> > aren't metaclasses, so it would make since to fix it.
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > --Guido van Rossum (home page:
> > > http://www.python.org/~guido/<http://www.python.org/%7Eguido/>
> )
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Python-3000 mailing list
> > > Python-3000@python.org
> > > http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-3000
> > > Unsubscribe:
> >
> http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-3000/musiccomposition%40gmail.com
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Cheers,
> > Benjamin Peterson
>
>
>
> --
> --Guido van Rossum (home page:
> http://www.python.org/~guido/<http://www.python.org/%7Eguido/>
> )
>
--
Cheers,
Benjamin Peterson
_______________________________________________
Python-3000 mailing list
Python-3000@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-3000
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-3000/archive%40mail-archive.com
