Here's where this exploration came from. I've (once again) been contemplating the OO nature.
It's clear to me that there needs to be a distinction between specialization of an object vs. expansion of an object (a new term I'm proposing to the OOP lexicon). The latter *adds* more functionality (like what everyone does with the Object class), while the former changes the behavior of some class for more specific behavior that was not programmed in the original class. It's a difference between, for example, concrete base types and ABCs. Python artificially tried to make int inherit from object, just because it can, but this is wrong. It`s messed with the Zen-thing. "Purity has hammered practicality [like the fact that we actually have to work on concrete types in the CPU] into the ground. " (addition mine). Sorry I can't spend more time clarifying. I hope that there's at least one person who sees the issue. Mark On 5/10/15, Mark Rosenblitt-Janssen <dreamingforw...@gmail.com> wrote: > Here's something that might be wrong in Python (tried on v2.7): > >>>> class int(str): pass > >>>> int(3) > '3' > > Mark > -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
