Why no number methods?

[Magnus Lie Hetland]

"Michael Hudson" <mwh at python.net> wrote in message
news:m37kzjq505.fsf at atrus.jesus.cam.ac.uk...
> "Magnus Lie Hetland" <mlh at idi.ntnu.no> writes:
>
> > "Michael Hudson" <mwh at python.net> wrote in message
> > news:Pine.LNX.4.30.0105141203140.24801-100000 at localhost.localdomain...
> > > On Mon, 14 May 2001, Magnus Lie Hetland wrote:
> > [...]

> Neat, yes, but helpful in any real way?  I'm less sure.  I mean, being
> able to understand Python semantics in five rather than twenty seconds
> is an improvement, but neither is a very long time.

I agree. I guess it was just my warped, minimalistic sense of aesthetics
that got the best of me ;)

I'll just tell it like it is, then.

> > > If 2.2 == 3000 (I don't think fp arithmetic is *that* inaccurate
<wink>)
> > > you *may* get your wish.
> >
> > Well -- from Guido's preface to the newest "Programming in Python"
> > this seems highly unlikely ;)
>
> Really?  Haven't read that.

It's online at O'Reilly's website. (No URL handy...)

He says that Python 3000 is a *long* way off. Whether that means that
the type/class gap will stay open far into the future is another
matter :)

> Well, assume that we have magically healed the type/class split so
> that all objects behave like instances.  Then imagine:
>
> class C:
>     def __repr__(self):
>         return "bongle"
>
> What's C.__repr__?  Quick!

<scratches head> An unbound method? (I *must* be missing something here ;)

>
> Cheers,
> M.

--

  Magnus Lie Hetland         http://www.hetland.org

 "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in
  it, doesn't go away."           -- Philip K. Dick