On Wednesday 22 October 2003 07:07 pm, Dave Brueck wrote: ... > > like a global variable. I also don't think I want global variable > > assignments to look like attribute assignments. > > Go easy on me for piping up here, but aren't they attribute assignments or > at least used as such? After reading the other posts in this thread I I entirely afree with this "user of Python" perspective, and I think it's a pity it's been ignored in the following discussion. > and any distinction would seem arbitrary or artificial (consider, for Yes! If the compiler needs to be aware of global assignments (which IS a good idea) we can do so by either introducing a new "operator keyword", OR something like Barry's suggestion of "import __me__" with __me__ as a magicname recognized by the compiler (hey, if it can recognize __future__ why not __me__?-). But to the Python user, making things look similar when their semantics and use ARE similar is a wonderful idea. > example, that it is not an uncommon practice to write a module instead of a > class if the class would be a singleton). Indeed, that IS the officially recommended practice (and Guido emphasized that in rather adamant words after he had recovered from the shock of seeing the Borg nonpattern presented at a Python-UK session...:-). Alex
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