On 10/3/2015 2:35 AM, neubyr wrote:
I was wondering if there is any resource that explains why certain
methods like str() and type()
These are classes. Calling a class calls the class construction and
initialization functions. These return an instance of the class.
While reading the
On Sat, 3 Oct 2015 04:35 pm, neubyr wrote:
> I was wondering if there is any resource that explains why certain methods
> like str() and type() were implemented the way they are, rather than
> .to_string() or .type() instance/object methods.
There is a FAQ that might help with this question:
I was wondering if there is any resource that explains why certain methods
like str() and type() were implemented the way they are, rather than
.to_string() or .type() instance/object methods.
I find instance/object methods more intuitive for this cases, but I am
wondering why it wasn't
In a message of Fri, 02 Oct 2015 23:35:28 -0700, neubyr writes:
>I was wondering if there is any resource that explains why certain methods
>like str() and type() were implemented the way they are, rather than
>.to_string() or .type() instance/object methods.
>
>I find instance/object methods more
