Dennis Heuer wrote: > The real misunderstanding lies somewhere else. I thought that the > bitarray's instance would have more control over the long type's > instance, like with the mutable types. I thought that the long type's > superclass would provide methods similar to __setitem__ that would > allow the bitarray instance to even *refresh* (or substitute) the long > instance in place. The result would be a freshly created long instance > substituting the old one. But the immuntable types do not offer such a > feature because one cannot substitute the long instance without > breaking the bitarray instance too.
Maybe that's the misunderstanding: but then you are still left with the mis-design. Even if long was mutable, or even if you used a mutable type as the base type (such as array.array), you *still* shouldn't inherit from it - these types are not in an "is-a" relationship. Regards, Martin _______________________________________________ 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
