In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"John Roth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Donn Cave" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Quoth "John Roth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > ...
> > | str() should be something that's meaningful to a human being when
> > | it's printed or othe
"Donn Cave" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Quoth "John Roth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> ...
> | str() should be something that's meaningful to a human being when
> | it's printed or otherwise rendered.
>
> I can't believe how many people cite this explanation - meaningf
Quoth "John Roth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
...
| str() should be something that's meaningful to a human being when
| it's printed or otherwise rendered.
I can't believe how many people cite this explanation - meaningful,
friendly, pretty to a human being. What on earth does this mean,
that couldn't b
"Jan Danielsson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sorry, but I Just Don't Get It. I did search the 'net, I did read the
> FAQ, but I'm too dumb to understand.
>
> As far as I can gather, __str__ is just a representation of the
> object. For instance:
>
> class Serv
