Why are so many built-in types inheritable?

[Antoon Pardon]

Op 2006-03-30, Michele Simionato schreef <michele.simionato at gmail.com>:
> I cannot find the reference now, but I remember Tim Peters saying some
> time ago that the only
> reason why FunctionType is not subclassable is that nobody bothered to
> write a patch for it.

The question then is, why is there a need for such a patch?

I mean when types and classes became unified and ints, lists ... became
subclassable one would think that in all those new code that had to be
written, it wouldn't have been that difficult to see to it that all
types became subclassable. I find it hard to believe that in the
unification period the decision to make one type subclassable and
an other not was made solely on the basis that a patch was submitted
for the first but not for the other.

-- 
Antoon Pardon