[Peter Funk]
> I believe __future__ is a bad name. What appears today as the bright
> shining future will be the distant dusty past of tomorrow. But the
> name of the module is not going to change anytime soon. right?
The name of what module?
Any statement of the form
from __future__ import shiny
becomes unnecessary as soon as shiny's future arrives, at which point the
statement can be removed. The statement is necessary only so long as shiny
*is* in the future. So the name is thoroughly appropriate.
> Please call it __progress__ or __history__ or even __python_history__
> or come up with some other name.
Sorry, but none of those make any sense given the intended use. It's not a
part of Python 2.1 "history" that nested scopes won't be the default before
2.2!
> What about __python_bloat__ ?
> <duck ;-)>.
*That* one makes some sense.
> In my experience of computing it is a really bad idea to call anything
> 'new', 'old', 'future', '2000' or some such because those names last much
> longer than you would have believed at the time the name was choosen.
The purpose of __future__ is to supply a means to try out future
incompatible extensions before they become the default. The set of future
extensions will change from release to release, but that they *are* in the
future remains invariant even if Python goes on until universal heat death.
Given the rules I already posted, it will be very easy to write a Python
tool to identify obsolete __future__ imports and remove them (if you want).
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