> I've suggested this to Guido in the past. His
> reasonable response is that this would be too big a
> change for Python 1. Maybe this is something to consider
> for Python 2?
Note: from now on the new name for Python 2 is Python 3000. :-)
> The basic idea (borrowed from Smalltalk) is to have a kind
> of dictionary that is a collection of "association"
> objects. An association object is simply a pairing of a
> name with a value. Association objects can be shared among
> multiple namespaces.
I've never liked this very much, mostly because it breaks simplicity:
the idea that a namespace is a mapping from names to values
(e.g. {"limit": 100, "doit": <function...>, ...}) is beautifully
simple, while the idea of inserting an extra level of indirection, no
matter how powerful, is much murkier.
There's also the huge change in semantics, as you point out;
currently,
from foo import bar
has the same effect (on bar anyway) as
import foo
bar = foo.bar # i.e. copying an object reference
del foo
while under your proposal it would be more akin to changing all
references to bar to become references to foo.bar.
Of course that's what the moral equivalent of "from ... import ..."
does in most other languages anyway, so we might consider this for
Python 3000; however it would break a considerable amount of old code,
I think. (Not to mention brain and book breakage. :-)
--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