> I presumed file() was preferred to open() for the simple reason that > it says more explicitly what you are doing. You are constructing a > file object. "open()" doesn't say whether you are opening a file or > socket or window or folder or ... > > open made sense in a Unix world where "everything was a file" > (except that even then it wasn't really) but it is a poor name for > the file opening function in a 21st century language. Maybe you'll change your mind when open() can return other objects besides files. In the mean time, let's use the compatibility argument. Changing things just because a new century has started sounds like a fad to me -- IOW the argument "it's the modern thing to do" usually doesn't convince me. --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)
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