On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 17:59:56 +0100 Andreas Pakulat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[ .. ] > > I mostly dislike the packing scheme of PyQt4, but I see where it's coming > > from, and as long as I'm allowed to use the "from QtCore import *" without > > polluting the global namespace, it's still good. Adding "signature" would be > > a serious problem. > > Again, I do see your point (now) and I do agree, that PyQt4 should not > "forbid" the from QtCore import * by using such a general name for a > function. > Huh, I see: from PyQt4.QtCore import * from PyQt4.QtCore import signature as pyqtSignature import signature from signature as a minor inconvenience instead of a serious problem. When I did a dir(PyQt4.QtCore), I also grepped my python library for signature and I found only one function called signature in a package (scipy) which behaves like a good citizen. I do not think I will be taken seriously if I ask to rename XX.name to XX.XXname because it collides with YY.name when I do: from XX import * from YY import * signature is just easier on my mind (and fingers) than pyqtSignature (admittedly a minor inconvenience, but the Python package system is there to resolve name clashes). I understand that you like to take an unrecommended shortcut and pollute the global namespace (Q-, q-prefix or not), but it is no reason to make life harder for people who don't. The only reason to rename signature is to prevent future name classes with Qt itself (highly unlikely IMO). Gerard. _______________________________________________ PyKDE mailing list [email protected] http://mats.imk.fraunhofer.de/mailman/listinfo/pykde
