Skip Montanaro said:
>
> Barry> So the idea would be to be able to write "import _.logging" and
> Barry> definitely get the global logging package. Using underscore in
> Barry> the logger would mirror this mnemonic for globalness.
>
> The connection seems tenuous, at best. If I log messages to syslog and
> and
> that file is later viewed or summarized by a third party, "python" seems a
> lot more useful than "_" or even "stdlib".
>
I agree with Barry that a name should be given to the standard library
"package" and that the namespace reserved in the logging hierarchy for
standard library modules should match this name.
On the other hand, "_" is making me have unpleasant Perl flashbacks.
*shiver* So I also agree with Skip that something more verbose would be
more useful.
I'm okay with waiting to see what becomes of Barry's idea before deciding
on a logging namespace.
Barry:
Not to get too far off-topic, but I'm curious what this statement would do:
from _ import *
And was this notation ever considered?
import .logging
(Not that that would help us much with the logging namespace issue. :-)
Matthew Barnes
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