Re: [Python-Dev] Patch review: [ 1009811 ] Add missing types to__builtin__
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 02:01:20 -0500, James Y Knight [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Basically, I'd like to see them be given a binding somewhere, and have their claimed module agree with that, but am not particular as to where. Option #2 seemed to be rejected last time, and option #1 was given approval, so that's what I wrote a patch for. It sounds like it's getting pretty strong no votes this time around, however. Therefore, I would like to suggest option #3, with newmodule being, say, 'internals'. +1 -- --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/) ___ 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
Re: [Python-Dev] Patch review: [ 1009811 ] Add missing types to__builtin__
James Y Knight wrote: Sooo should (for 'generator' in objects that claim to be in __builtins__ but aren't), 1) 'generator' be added to __builtins__ 2) 'generator' be added to types.py and its __module__ be set to 'types' 3) 'generator' be added to newmodule.py and its __module__ be set to 'newmodule' (and a name for the module chosen) There are more alternatives: 4) the __module__ of these types could be absent (i.e. accessing __module__ could give an AttributeError) 5) the __module__ could be present and have a value of None 6) anything could be left as is. The __module__ value of these types might be somewhat confusing, but not enough so to justify changing it to any of the alternatives, which might also be confusing (each in their own way). Basically, I'd like to see them be given a binding somewhere, and have their claimed module agree with that, but am not particular as to where. I think I cannot agree with this as a goal regardless of the consequences. Option #2 seemed to be rejected last time, and option #1 was given approval, so that's what I wrote a patch for. It sounds like it's getting pretty strong no votes this time around, however. Therefore, I would like to suggest option #3, with newmodule being, say, 'internals'. -1. 'internals' is not any better than 'sys', 'new', or 'types'. It is worse, as new modules are confusing to users - one more thing they have to learn. Regards, Martin ___ 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
Re: [Python-Dev] Patch review: [ 1009811 ] Add missing types to__builtin__
Raymond Hettinger wrote: Other than a vague feeling of completeness is there any reason this needs to be done? Is there anything useful that currently cannot be expressed without this new module? That I wonder myself, too. Regards, Martin ___ 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
Re: [Python-Dev] Patch review: [ 1009811 ] Add missing types to__builtin__
On Thu, 2005-01-27 at 17:24, Martin v. Löwis wrote: Raymond Hettinger wrote: Other than a vague feeling of completeness is there any reason this needs to be done? Is there anything useful that currently cannot be expressed without this new module? That I wonder myself, too. One reason is correct documentation. If the code is rejected, there should be a patch proposed to remove the erroneous documentation references that indicates things are in __builtins_ when they are in fact not. If they are put into __builtins__, the documentation won't need updating. ;-) -Jeff Rush ___ 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
Re: [Python-Dev] Patch review: [ 1009811 ] Add missing types to__builtin__
On Jan 27, 2005, at 1:20 AM, Martin v. Löwis wrote: I agree. Because of the BDFL pronouncement, I cannot reject the patch, but I won't accept it, either. So it seems that this patch will have to sit in the SF tracker until either Guido processes it, or it is withdrawn. If people want to restart this discussion, I'd like to start back with the following message, rather than simply accepting/rejecting the patch. From the two comments so far, it seems like it's not the patch that needs reviewing, but still the concept. On August 10, 2004 12:17:14 PM EDT, I wrote: Sooo should (for 'generator' in objects that claim to be in __builtins__ but aren't), 1) 'generator' be added to __builtins__ 2) 'generator' be added to types.py and its __module__ be set to 'types' 3) 'generator' be added to newmodule.py and its __module__ be set to 'newmodule' (and a name for the module chosen) Basically, I'd like to see them be given a binding somewhere, and have their claimed module agree with that, but am not particular as to where. Option #2 seemed to be rejected last time, and option #1 was given approval, so that's what I wrote a patch for. It sounds like it's getting pretty strong no votes this time around, however. Therefore, I would like to suggest option #3, with newmodule being, say, 'internals'. James ___ 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
