On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 6:49 PM, Rick Johnson
rantingrickjohn...@gmail.com wrote:
Look, maybe nobody has the time to deal with this module, so if you need some
help, then feel free to ask for my assistance. All Guido has to do is send me
a private email and say:
Hello Rick! Your ideas for
Please explain how this is a problem. As Steven said, there is NO
useful difference. I don't *care* whether it's a package, a module,
or
whatever. Module with class with static member? Fine. Package with
module with class? Also fine. Imported special object that uses
dunder
On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 21:22:57 -0800, Rick Johnson wrote:
On Saturday, January 12, 2013 12:45:03 AM UTC-6, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Fri, 11 Jan 2013 20:34:20 -0800, Rick Johnson wrote:
[...]
So what do you do for, say, os.path? According to the first rule, you
must write it as os:path
On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 10:22 PM, Rick Johnson
rantingrickjohn...@gmail.com wrote:
You are missing the point of this syntax. The colon is to access MODULE
NAMESPACE. The dot is to access MODULE MEMBERS. A module CAN BE another
module's MEMBER.
You are also unable to grasp this simple
On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 11:51 AM, Ian Kelly ian.g.ke...@gmail.com wrote:
Because modules and objects are not the same and someone who is reading the
source code NEEDS to know which path members are /modules/ and which path
members are /objects/. And he needs to know that very important
On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 11:51:50 -0700
Ian Kelly ian.g.ke...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 10:22 PM, Rick Johnson
rantingrickjohn...@gmail.com wrote:
...Whatever
If you want us to understand the syntax, then you need to define
If you are going to feed the trolls can I please ask that
On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 12:35 PM, D'Arcy J.M. Cain da...@druid.net wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 11:51:50 -0700
Ian Kelly ian.g.ke...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 10:22 PM, Rick Johnson
rantingrickjohn...@gmail.com wrote:
...Whatever
If you want us to understand the syntax, then
On Monday, January 14, 2013 11:34:56 AM UTC-6, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
Since both os and path are modules, you here say that they need a colon
between them. This contradicts the above when you say the syntax for
os.path won't change.
But you forgot the rule about accessing module members
On Monday, January 14, 2013 12:51:50 PM UTC-6, Ian wrote:
I think the distinction you are trying to make here is based upon the
submodule's actual source location on the disk. If you have a package
folder A which contains a file B.py, then you would access that as
A:B, correct? If on the
On Saturday, January 12, 2013 12:45:03 AM UTC-6, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Fri, 11 Jan 2013 20:34:20 -0800, Rick Johnson wrote:
[...]
So what do you do for, say, os.path? According to the first rule, you
must write it as os:path because path is a module; according to the
second rule, you
On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 6:01 AM, Rick Johnson
rantingrickjohn...@gmail.comwrote:
Python's module/package access uses dot notation.
mod1.mod2.mod3.modN
Like many warts of the language, this wart is not so apparent when first
learning the language. The dot seems innocently sufficient,
Chris Angelico於 2013年1月12日星期六UTC+8下午12時40分36秒寫道：
On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 3:34 PM, Rick Johnson
rantingrickjohn...@gmail.com wrote:
*The problem:*
... is readability. The current dot syntax used ubiquitously in paths is
not conveying the proper information to the reader, and in-fact
On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 22:01:37 -0800, Rick Johnson wrote:
Python's module/package access uses dot notation.
mod1.mod2.mod3.modN
Like many warts of the language, this wart is not so apparent when first
learning the language. The dot seems innocently sufficient, however, in
truth it is
On Friday, 1-11-2013 10:02:34 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
Solution to what? You can only have a solution once you have identified a
problem. You have not identified a problem. In any case, your suggestion
is *not* obvious.
The problem is that by using the dot ubiquitously we are obfuscating
On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 3:34 PM, Rick Johnson
rantingrickjohn...@gmail.com wrote:
*The problem:*
... is readability. The current dot syntax used ubiquitously in paths is not
conveying the proper information to the reader, and in-fact obfuscating the
code.
Please explain how this is a
On Friday, January 11, 2013 10:40:36 PM UTC-6, Chris Angelico wrote:
On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 3:34 PM, Rick Johnson
*The problem:*
... is readability. The current dot syntax used ubiquitously in paths is
not conveying the proper information to the reader, and in-fact obfuscating
the
On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 4:46 PM, Rick Johnson
rantingrickjohn...@gmail.com wrote:
This is a matter of READABILITY, Christopher. It's one or the other (or the
status quo):
1. Enforce naming conventions.
2. Enforce path syntax.
3. Continue to duck type, like Python is good at.
The choice is
On Fri, 11 Jan 2013 20:34:20 -0800, Rick Johnson wrote:
import lib:gui:tkinter:dialogs.SimpleDialog as Blah
Which names are packages, modules, classes, methods, functions, or
other objects?
Why do you have lib:gui but dialogs.SimpleDialog? Is the rule classes
should always be preceded
On Fri, 11 Jan 2013 21:46:36 -0800, Rick Johnson wrote:
On Friday, January 11, 2013 10:40:36 PM UTC-6, Chris Angelico wrote:
On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 3:34 PM, Rick Johnson
*The problem:*
... is readability. The current dot syntax used ubiquitously in paths
is not conveying the proper
On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 9:34 PM, Rick Johnson
rantingrickjohn...@gmail.com wrote:
No the rules are:
* Colon must be used to access a module (or a package).
* Dot must be used to access a module member.
What about module a that does not natively contain module b, but
imports it as a
On 12 Jan, 14:34, Rick Johnson rantingrickjohn...@gmail.com wrote:
If you don't know which names are modules and which names are members
then how could a programmer possibly use the API in an intelligent way
Your initial argument is that with import's current dot notation, it's
not obvious
Python's module/package access uses dot notation.
mod1.mod2.mod3.modN
Like many warts of the language, this wart is not so apparent when first
learning the language. The dot seems innocently sufficient, however, in truth
it is woefully inadequate! Observe:
name1.name2.name3.name4.name5
22 matches
Mail list logo
