THIS Is A Crazy Way To Handle Types In Python

This is a crazy way to handle types in Python. #code #python #programming

[RiseofDevil]

type() **exists**

_why am i still here. Just to suffer.._

[DrDeuteron]

Type(var) or even var.__class__ seems easier

[Kakashi]

Match case only works if you have Python 3.10 or higher

[CodeZeroSix]

you can use type() no more bhadak... btw nice knowledge❤

[yekhtiari]

This is just for showing the new feature in python, so don't complain that type() can do it simpler.

[alkebabish]

A type can be anything though, it could be a list of objects, it could be mysterious Python object... And anyway you can use type()

[jeffreyepiscopo]

When would you need this over type(var)

[KeiraraVT]

What about if it’s like classes, or large and compact forms of data?

[ethanfrink]

Is there a case when isinstance() would not give the result of this match?

[miguelxd]

if type(var) == str: or match type(var): case str:

[creativeimg]

You can use type brother to do that easily

[jyvben]

e.g; convert_it(some_data, demo_type), where match checks demo_type and converts some_data to that type, demo_type was chosen by the user, combined with custom types ...

[vi_k]

Why would you use that over isisnstance()

[robertobokarev]

type(var), var._class_, isinstance() and *is* operator: Are we jokes for you?

[DustinSummy]

If you find yourself doing this and it's actually necessary, stop immediately and go fix whatever you did wrong somewhere else that made this necessary.

[AntonioZL]

Isn't calling it a constructor correct? Aren't data types in Python an object?

[karag]

Why is this better than using if sld elif stements?

[apmcd]

Suggestion: Do this example again but use Single Dispatch ...

[tommywareing]

And if any of your types are subclassed, that won't work, which is why you're supposed to use isinstance instead.

[schlopping]

this is pretty interesting but why tf would it work like this?