Op 2005-12-15, Ben Sizer schreef <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > Antoon Pardon wrote: >> Op 2005-12-14, Christopher Subich schreef >> > Doesn't work; duck typing is emphatically not subclass-typing. >> >> I don't see how that is relevant. >> >> > For this >> > system to still work and be as general as Python is now (without having >> > to make all variables 'object's), >> >> But the way Guido wants python to evolve would make all variables >> objects. This is what PEP 3000 states. >> >> Support only new-style classes; classic classes will be gone. >> >> As far as I understand this would imply that all classes are subclasses >> of object and thus that isinstance(var, object) would be true for all >> variables. > > But that's still useless for your purposes.
What purpose would that be? Maybe you can tell me, so I can know too. > Everything will be derived from object but it doesn't mean > everything file-like will be derived from file or everything > dictionary-like will be derived from dictionary. So? I answered a question. That my answer is not usefull for a specific purpose is very well prosible but is AFAIC irrelevant. I didn't notice a specific purpose behind the question and didn't answer the question with a specific purpose in mind. > Duck-typing means that code told to 'expect' certain types > will break unnecessarily when a different-yet-equivalent type is later > passed to it. I think you mixed things up. -- Antoon Pardon -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
