On Mon, 27 Mar 2000, Peter Funk wrote: > If the result of this renaming initiative will be that I can't use > import sys, os, time, re, struct, cPickle, parser > import Tkinter; Tk=Tkinter; del Tkinter > anymore in Python 1.x and instead I have to change this into (for example): > form posix import time from time import time > from text import re > from bin import struct > from Python import parser > from ui import Tkinter; ... Yes. > I would really really *HATE* this change! Well, I'm sorry to hear that -- I'm waiting for this change to happen for a long time. > [side note: > The 'from MODULE import ...' form is evil and I have abandoned its use > in favor of the 'import MODULE' form in 1987 or so, as our Modula-2 > programs got bigger and bigger. With 20+ software developers working > on a ~1,000,000 LOC of Modula-2 software system, this decision > proofed itself well. Well, yes. Though syntactically equivalent, from package import module Is the recommended way to use packages, unless there is a specific need. > May be I didn't understand what this new subdivision of the standard > library should achieve. Namespace cleanup. Too many toplevel names seem evil to some of us. > Why is a subdivision on the documentation level not sufficient? > Why should modules be moved into packages? I don't get it. To allow a greater number of modules to live without worrying about namespace collision. -- Moshe Zadka <mzadka@geocities.com>. http://www.oreilly.com/news/prescod_0300.html http://www.linux.org.il -- we put the penguin in .com
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