Michael Chermside <mcherm at mcherm.com>: > Suppose that had some code which had an object representing a > directory, with a method "open(filename, mode='r')" that opened > files in the directory. Given this object, you could imagine > constructing new objects with more limited capabilities. With regard to files, we'd almost have something like that now, if it weren't for the unfortunate fact that the file type's constructor can be used to open any file. In light of this, it may have been a serious mistake to unify the 'file' type and the 'open' function. Is it too late to back out of that decision? Greg Ewing, Computer Science Dept, +--------------------------------------+ University of Canterbury, | A citizen of NewZealandCorp, a | Christchurch, New Zealand | wholly-owned subsidiary of USA Inc. | greg at cosc.canterbury.ac.nz +--------------------------------------+
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