Matt Hammond a écrit : >> So some questions arise: >> 1. Good idea or not? >> 2. Really? Could be viewed as bad mojo & messing about one step too >> far. >> 3. If OK, should it be static? ie the list of what gets imported and >> handles what dealt with by a table lookup in Kamaelia/__init__.py ? >> 4. Or should it go "OK, I was imported here, I'll rummage around in all >> my >> subdirectories, in this overall order" >> 5. Do 3, then 4, if the name wasn't found in 3. >> 6. The other way round ? >> 7. Do we allow extra search paths for the case of 4 ? (think sys.path >> for >> modules) >> 8. How about allowing extra lookup tables to be added in the case of 3? >> 9. lots more possibilities. >> > > I can see it would be much less verbose and that is a *good* thing! If > nothing else, from writing examples in documentation, where brevity is > highly desireable, adding all those import statements can be tedious and > ugly. > True and yet I welcome that verbosity. I did a bit of Ruby and the first thing that annoyed me was that there was lots of magic going on in module finding and since the language allows you to change things rather dramatically at so many levels I ended up being lost and frustrated quickly.
I appreciate the fact that the current verbosity means I know where things are coming from and never worry about name clashing. - Sylvain --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "kamaelia" group. To post to this group, send email to kamaelia@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to kamaelia+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/kamaelia?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
