<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Greg Ewing wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:47AFCDBE.50804@canterbury.ac.nz" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Yes, but then I don't see the advantage over just giving the object a copy() method and calling it directly.
In other words, I see little benefit in having copy() be a generic function.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
So true! Other candidates for not being generic functions: len(),
repr(), str(), int(), complex(), dict(), list(), set()...<br>
<br>
So what decides whether something should be a generic function or a
commonly-defined member function? Personally I find "historical
accident" an unsatisfying answer.<br>
<br>
<br>
<i>larry</i><br>
</body>
</html>