RetroSearch Browse

Sat Nov 19 00:15:28 CET 2011 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2011-November/114512.html

On Nov 18, 2011, at 09:14 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:

>I haven't seen any strong objections, so I would like to go ahead and
>commit PEP 3155 (*) soon. Is anyone against it?
>
>(*) "Qualified name for classes and functions"
>    http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-3155/

I'm still not crazy about the attribute name, although I appreciate you
including the discussion in the PEP.  Have you identified a BDFOP that might
be able to pronounce on the choice?  Or perhaps Guido would like to weigh in?

The PEP says that the qualified name deliberately does not include the module
name, but it doesn't explain why.  I think it should (explain why).

I'd like the PEP to explain why this is a better solution than re-establishing
introspectability that was available through unbound methods.

Cheers,
-Barry

Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2011-November/114512.html below:

[Python-Dev] Committing PEP 3155