Ron, > I'm wonder how many places in pythons syntax requires or produces specific > types. And if listing and organizing these commonly used "syntactically > necessary" types would be useful to determine the minimum list of ABC's. > (More > can always be added later.)
I think a lot of the syntactic niceties have been developed to support various usage patterns, but not every usage pattern has been special-cased with syntax, because some are already supported by the basic language structures. But I agree that looking at the types which define special methods which are mapped to "operators" is a good idea. I just don't see any assurance that it would produce the complete set. > The approach suggested above, takes a much narrower view and would start by > what > is only currently necessary by the language's current syntax. These are > places > where you may possibly need to test for type-ness. To support operators. But there are other reasons to test for type-ness. Bill _______________________________________________ Python-3000 mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-3000 Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-3000/archive%40mail-archive.com
