Why are so many built-in types inheritable?

[Antoon Pardon]

Op 2006-03-31, Georg Brandl schreef <g.brandl-nospam at gmx.net>:
> Antoon Pardon wrote:
>> Op 2006-03-31, Georg Brandl schreef <g.brandl-nospam at gmx.net>:
>>> Antoon Pardon wrote:
>>>
>>> If he/she's not able to do one of these, he/she can at least convince some
>>> other Python developer if the use case is strong enough.
>> 
>> Yes you told this already, and it ignores completely the point
>> I am trying to make. There is a point here beside convincing
>> the devolopers to implement this.
>
> Being? I mean, developer time isn't available en masse, and an overly
> strict view on purity might sometimes actually prevent a feature being
> implemented.

That there are different reasons why something is not implemented.
Something not implemented can be the result of a design choice.
This is how we want the language to look like, as a result something
like that will never be implemeted.

Or it can be the result of time constraints, yes we think this
should be implemented but unless someone else does it, this
is item 367 on out todo list.

Or it may be the result of an oversigth or something totally
different.


Before I'm considering going to py-dev and bother them with
an idea of mine, I would at least like to know that the
idea would be accepted as a good design choice within the
python philosophy.

So when argueing about good/bad design it doesn't help if
you already point to the next step.

-- 
Antoon Pardon