On Tue, 23 Nov 2010, Antoine Pitrou wrote: > Le mardi 23 novembre 2010 à 12:32 -0500, Isaac Morland a écrit : >> On Tue, 23 Nov 2010, Antoine Pitrou wrote: >> >>> We already have a bunch of bizarrely unrelated stuff in collections >>> (such as Callable), so we could put enum there too. >> >> Why not just "enum" (i.e., "from enum import [...]" or "import >> enum.[...]")? Enumerations are one of the basic kinds of types overall >> (speaking informally and independent of any specific language) - they >> aren't at all exotic. > > Enumerations aren't a type at all (they have no distinguishing > property). Each enumeration is a type (well, OK, not in every language, presumably, but certainly in many languages). The word "basic" is more important than "types" in my sentence - the point is that an enumeration capability is a very common one in a type system, and is very general, not specific to any particular application. >> And "Flat is better than nested", after all. > > Not when it means creating a separate module for every micro-feature. Classes have their own keyword. I don't think it's disproportionate to give enums a top-level module name. Having said that, I understand we're trying to have a not-too-flat module namespace and I can see the sense in putting it in "collections". But I think the idea that enumerations are of very wide applicability and hence deserve a shorter name should be seriously considered. I'll leave it at that, except for: Hey, how about this syntax: enum Colors: red = 0 green = 10 blue (blue gets the value 11) ;-) Isaac Morland CSCF Web Guru DC 2554C, x36650 WWW Software Specialist
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