"Nick Coghlan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | > Sorry if this is a dumb question, but are there actually good reasons to remove "types"? | | Mainly because it is an unrelated grab bag of types that could be put in | more topical locations - what they're for is more interesting than the | mere fact that they happen to be types.
An additional answer is that a number of changes in the 2.x series have have the types modules more or less obsolete. 1. It was once intended, I believe,to be a more or less complete catalog of types. As the number of internal implementation types have increased (and changed from release to release), this goal has become more difficult and less sensible. 2. The type-class unification that started in 2.2 unified several type objects with their corresponding (builtin) constructors (which became the __call__ methods of the type objects). This mades the type objects that most people are most interested in directly accessible as builtins. "type(o) == str" did not work when 'str' was a just conversion function rather than the string type object! tjr _______________________________________________ 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
