Yury Selivanov added the comment: > Did anyone consider moving these near the “types” module, either directly > inside, or as a “types.abc” submodule? In my mind, these ABCs would fit > reasonably well there. They are related to built-in types, but do not have > built-in names.
Big -1. Let's avoid nesting 'abc' modules throughout the standard library. One of the good practices in Python is to import modules, not classes from modules. With 'types.abc' I'll have to import 'from types import abc', and then, in the code, I won't be so sure which 'abc' is it -- 'abc', 'types.abc', 'collections.abc' etc. Putting ABCs in the 'types' module directly also doesn't feel right and can confuse users. 'types' already contains things like 'GeneratorType', 'CoroutineType' etc, which are actual types (not ABCs). ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue25637> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
