Steven D'Aprano <st...@remove-this-cybersource.com.au> writes: > On Mon, 20 Jul 2009 21:08:22 +1000, Ben Finney wrote: > > A mutable string would not (AFAICT) be usefully implementable as a > > subclass of the built-in string types. So even if such a type > > existed, it would not be useable with all the functionality that > > works with strings. > > If applications ignore duck-typing and do isinstance(value, str), it's > arguably the application and not the value that is broken.
Agreed, I wouldn't advise that. My point was rather meant to imply that subclassing the built-in (immutable) string types was the best way to usefully get all their functionality, rather than re-implementing most of it. -- \ “I went to a restaurant that serves ‘breakfast at any time’. So | `\ I ordered French Toast during the Renaissance.” —Steven Wright | _o__) | Ben Finney -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
