On 5/22/06, Talin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Guido van Rossum wrote: > > I think this is a reasonable suggestion. Perhaps less code would break > > if you renamed the metaclass instead of the inquiry function. > > > > --Guido > > I'd like to lend my support to Tomer's proposal. I have been confused > (repeatedly, which is a bad sign) by the conflation of the type-query > and type-construction uses of 'type'. > > As far as renaming the metaclass goes, I think that 'type' is a really > good name for the metaclass, so even if it would break less things, > there's a strong mnemonic value in keeping it the way it is. I think > 'typeof' is a reasonably good name for the query function.
Doesn't convince me. Python doesn't have any "xyzzyof" functions; I find this quite ugly -- and xyzzy_of is no better due to the dreaded underscore. After all, we don't write lenof(seq). And I'm not sure why 'type' is such a great name for the metaclass -- it just doesn't express clearly what it is (if anything, it ought to be called "class" or "Class"). Finally, type() the function is older. > (In fact, the first time I tried to use type( x ), I accidentally typed > 'typeof( x )'. So this is one data point as to how intuitive the name is.) The only intuitive interface is the nipple. Everything else is learned. (Jef Raskin, I believe.) -- --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/) _______________________________________________ Python-3000 mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-3000 Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-3000/archive%40mail-archive.com
