On May 6, 2009, at 1:46 PM, P.J. Eby wrote:
At 10:59 AM 5/6/2009 -0400, Doug Hellmann wrote:
On May 5, 2009, at 10:50 PM, P.J. Eby wrote:
At 12:03 PM 5/6/2009 +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
I don't see any advantage, in the context of this discussion, to
having an additional, incompatible naming for full-path-to-a-class.
Setuptools doesn't limit an entry point to being a class, function,
or other top-level name within a module. It can be a method of a
class, or an attribute of an attribute. The ':' removes any
ambiguity as to which part of the name is the module, and which
parts are attributes within that module.
Is that level of complexity useful in practice? I can understand how
it came to be implemented, but is it actually used by any projects?
I use it; I'm not sure who else does.
The particular use case I have (and that's most likely to be shared)
is that the calling app or framework wants a callable or function,
but the providing app or library implements that callable as a
classmethod for convenience.
That's pretty much what I expected. It feels a little messy to have
plugins exposing "internals" like that but not so much so that I
propose we don't allow it. The ":" syntax seems like the right way to
go.
_______________________________________________
Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
