On Thu, 18 Dec 2003, Greg Ewing wrote: > Thinking about the double_underscore names, it might not > be so bad if they were a bit shorter, e.g. > > A: __root__.P.Q > B: __here__.P.Q > __here__.__parent__.P.Q > C: P.Q Why separate __here__ and __parent__? (I may just be confused, here.) Aren't both about getting the relative package container? Discussing schemes for explicit relative and absolute imports with some colleagues a few days ago, we liked '__pkg__' for the package containing the current module - and __pkg__.__pkg__ to mean its' container (and so on, for those non-programmers out there:-). Someone also wanted explicit expression of absolute, which we thought might be '__python__'. A: __python__.P.Q B: __pkg__.P.Q __pkg__.__pkg__.P.Q C: P.Q That said, *i* much prefer the leading '.' scheme - i think the underscores are distinctly *not* easier to read, and i'm not bothered, anyway, by the "punctuality" of the leading-'.' - i think it stands out enough to be noticable, and the fractured-path implication of it conveys the relativeness... Ken klm at zope.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