Is the Python types module superfluous?

[Colin J. Williams]

Travis Oliphant wrote:

Gerard Vermeulen wrote:

On Wed, 01 Feb 2006 11:15:09 -0500
"Colin J. Williams" <cj*@sympatico. ca> wrote:

[ currently numpy uses ndarray, with synonym ArrayType, for a
multidimensiona l array ]

[Dbg]>>> import types
[Dbg]>>> dir(types)
['BooleanType', 'BufferType', 'BuiltinFunctio nType',
'BuiltinMethodT ype', 'ClassType', 'CodeType', 'ComplexType',
'DictProxyType' , 'DictType', 'DictionaryType ', 'EllipsisType',
'FileType', 'FloatType', 'FrameType', 'FunctionType', 'GeneratorType' ,
'Instance
Type', 'IntType', 'LambdaType', 'ListType', 'LongType', 'MethodType',
'ModuleType', 'NoneType', 'NotImplemented Type', 'ObjectType',
'SliceType', 'StringType', 'StringTypes', 'TracebackType' , 'TupleType',
'TypeType', 'UnboundMethodT ype', 'UnicodeType', 'XRan
geType', '__builtins__', '__doc__', '__file__', '__name__']
[Dbg]>>>

Isn't the types module becoming superfluous?

That's the point I was trying to make. ArrayType is to ndarray as
DictionaryType is to dict. My understanding is that the use of
types.Dictionar yType is discouraged.

-Travis

I was simply trying to suggest that the name ArrayType is more
appropriate name that ndbigarray or ndarray for the multidimensiona l
array. Since the intent is, in the long run, to integrate numpy with
the Python distribution, the use of a name in the style of the existing
Python types would appear to be better.

Is the types module becoming superfluous? I've cross posted to c.l.p to
seek information on this.

Colin W.