On Wed, 17 Aug 2005, Steve Holden wrote: > Tom Anderson wrote: > >> On Tue, 16 Aug 2005, Ron Adam wrote: >> >>> Simon Brunning wrote: >>> >>>> On 8/14/05, Martijn Brouwer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I can imagine that *a lot* of libs/scripts use the copy library, >>>> >>>> I think that copy is very rarely used. I don't think I've ever >>>> imported it. >>> >>> I too have wondered why copy isn't a builtin, >> >> Same here. It seems like a sort of obvious thing to have, and could >> probably implemented much more simply and quickly in the interpreter. You'd >> probably want a __copy__ hook for classes which want special handling, and >> just do a normal deep copy for everything else. > > Well yes, but given that module copy now exists (and will therefore have > to continue ti exist until Py3) that would introduce some redundancy.
True. This is more of a vague Py3k wish than a serious suggestion. tom -- 10 PARTY : GOTO 10 -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
