On 3/12/06, Raymond Hettinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [Nick Coghlan] > > I agree it makes sense to have "decorator", "memoize", "deprecated" and > > "partial" all being members of the same module, whether the name be > > "functools" or "functional" (although I have a slight preference for > > "functools" due to the parallel with "itertools"). > > I like "functools" for a different reason -- the name is sufficiently broad so > that we don't have fret about whether a particular tool fits within the > module's > scope. In contrast, a name like "functional" suggests that some of these > tools > don't quite fit.
FWIW, +1 here. Especially if we're only going to add two functions -- ``partial``, which is already accepted, and Georg's ``decorator`` -- it seems like overkill to introduce a module for each. I agree that "functools" is a better module name if both ``partial`` and ``decorator`` are going in there. STeVe -- Grammar am for people who can't think for myself. --- Bucky Katt, Get Fuzzy _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com