FEEDBACK WANTED: Type/class unification

[Guido van Rossum]

cliechti at mails.ch (chris liechti) writes:

> why 2.2? this would also fit in a 3.0 along with a unified number system 
> and true division. this would make a clean cut and a new better "python 
> 3.0" would be the choice for new projects and beginners. as you pointed 
> out, in perl there was a similar cut from 4 to 5 (well python won't be very 
> incompatible, just some modules need an update). 

The idea is to experiment with the new features in 2.2 (and later) in
a way that tries not to break old code, and to introduce the
code-breaking finishing touch in 3.0.

> will this also allow to replace the default generators for builtin 
> types/type-classes? i mean that i can replace "int", "float", "complex",... 
> with my own factories, say to implement my own number tower with rationals 
> (if they weren't included anyway).

This won't affect the type of literals, so I don't think it'll be very
useful.  But of course you can write your own numeric types that fit
in with the rest.

--Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)