Hi,

I think UserString must play nicely with other standard objects to be useful. For example, right now is not possible to join a list of UserString with a string. 

This shouldn't fail:

   from UserString import UserString
   '.'.join([UserString('some')])

but it fails in 2.7 and it fails too with 3.2 (replacing with collections).

I'm assuming most of the user of UserString, use it as a replacement of a string, and it would be great to actually be able to replace strings passed to thid parties with userstrings. 

I imagine there would be some edge situations harder to resolve, but if someone is just using standard libraries it should be safe to pass a string or an userstring.

Bye.

This is not a bug, but a potential new feature. Therefore, it can go only into 3.4 (if at all).

If you want a class that behaves like a string object, you should subclass from str.

mm, I thought that was impossible, and that I should be using UserString
actually. I didn't notice the big warning at the beginning of the section
at the docs.

Sorry, I will change my code.

Thanks.

On Sat, Nov 3, 2012 at 2:33 PM, Martin v. Löwis <report@bugs.python.org>wrote:

>
> Martin v. Löwis added the comment:
>
> If you want a class that behaves like a string object, you should subclass
> from str.
>
> ----------
>
> _______________________________________
> Python tracker <report@bugs.python.org>
> <http://bugs.python.org/issue16397>
> _______________________________________
>

-- 
Jorge Eduardo Cardona

jorgeecardona@gmail.com
jorge@cardona.co

cardona.co
github.com/jorgeecardona

Jorge, can we close this or do you still have a specific suggestion.
Also, if you reply by mail, please snip previous messages as they are already posted.

Hi, this can be closed. 

Thanks.