Guido van Rossum wrote:
>>"Why in the world would you want callable modules you ask?" I
>>don't have a real need, but I often see the line blurred between packag=
e,
>>module, and class.
>
> Please don't try to blur the line between module and class. This has
> been proposed many times,
It sounds familiar! ;)
> and the net result IMO is always more
> confusion and no more power. This is also why in 2.3, modules are no
> longer subclassable.
>
> If you really need to have a module that has behavior beyond what a
> module can offer, the officially sanctioned way is to stick an
> instance of a class in sys.modules[__name__] from inside the module's
> code.
But reload() won't work for these pseudo modules (See
http://www.python.org/sf/701743). What about the imp module?
> (I would explain more about *why* I think it's a really bad idea, but
> I'm officially on vacation.)
Sure, this can wait.
Bye,
Walter Dörwald
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