On Wed, Dec 21, 2005, Michael Chermside wrote: > > So I have a counter-proposal. Let's NOT create a hierarchy of abstract > base types for the elementary types of Python. (Even basestring feels > like a minor wart to me, although for now it seems like we need > it.) If the core problem is "how do you create a canonical ordering > for objects that survives serialization and deserialization into a > different VM?", then somehow abstract base types doesn't seem like > the most obvious solution. And if that's not the problem we're trying > to solve here, then what IS? Because I don't know of very many ACTUAL > (as opposed to theoretical) use cases for abstract base classes of > fundamental types.
You've got a good point, but the documentation issue still exists; that's what I was more interested in. Clearly lists, tuples, and strings are sequences; clearly dicts are a mapping; the question is whether sets get tossed in with dicts. Overall, I think it's pretty clear that the answer is "no", particularly given that sets don't support __getitem__(). -- Aahz ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <*> http://www.pythoncraft.com/ "Don't listen to schmucks on USENET when making legal decisions. Hire yourself a competent schmuck." --USENET schmuck (aka Robert Kern) _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
