Far from complete

[Kay Schluehr]

Steve Holden wrote:
> Kay Schluehr wrote:
> > Section 2.3 of the Python 2.5. tutorial
> >
> > "The following sections describe the standard types that are built into
> > the interpreter. Historically, Python's built-in types have differed
> > from user-defined types because it was not possible to use the built-in
> > types as the basis for object-oriented inheritance. With the 2.2
> > release this situation has started to change, although the intended
> > unification of user-defined and built-in types is as yet far from
> > complete. "
> >
> > "Far from complete"? Have I missed something?
> >
> Releases 2.3 through 2.5, by the look of it :)
>
> Of course the "classic" classes still remain, and probably won't
> disappear until 3.0, so that could be regarded as "completion" of the
> change described. Then *everything* will ultimately be based on "object".

Of course I can live with the fact that "classic classes" are not
considered as legacy and being "supported for backwards compatibility"
but are the reason why the object system is "far from complete". It is
just a little harder to argue that the object system is not immature
and early alpha since Python 2.2 when the Python tutorial states it
differently. Fortunately I'm not responsibe for "marketing" the
language and explain this to beginners with the juridical sensititvity
like you do it here for me.