I've started reading the paper and agree that it's very good! > It's interesting, however, to see how the theory was applied on Python and > to establish the fairly easy analogy of the binding model. This analogy > proves the good design choices Guido has made, but also reveals some > weaknesses or the incompleteness of the current implementation. I hope > to discuss this for Python 2 in due time and perhaps settle on a compromise > which trades genericity for performance. The naming/binding problem drives > the whole implementation logic in Python (objects, classes, scopes, etc.). I'd like to hear what those weaknesses are in your eyes. I can think of two areas myself: (1) sys.path, $PYTHONPATH etc.; (2) class/instance attributes in the context of subclassing and evolution of the base class. (I don't expect the paper to take a stance on nested scopes.) --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4