Doug Hellmann wrote: > 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.
I'd be tempted to call this an edge-case. You should be able to expose the internal detail you'd need via a module scope alias for the particular case. That seems easier than providing a whole new notion. Hanno _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
