> Bill Janssen wrote: > > > This seems kind of a weak rationale to me, but OK. > > yeah, namespaces are such a useless thing. let's put everything in one > big flat namespace, so we don't have to wonder where things are. > > </F>
Pardon me? That's what we've got now, isn't it? That's why we have to do that ugly and hard-to-explain name mangling for "special" methods. Here's why I think it's weak: 1) Mainly, all methods are special to someone. Having only one hard-to-differentiate syntactic mechanism to identify them really doesn't work very well. 2) But also, if Python was built with interfaces, "special" methods would each be in their own namespace. That is, a user wouldn't have to worry about accidentally overriding a method; they'd have to explicitly override the "len" method inherited from the "container" interface; just defining a method called "len" in their subclass wouldn't do it. CLOS is rather elegant in this respect. Bill _______________________________________________ Python-3000 mailing list Python-3000@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-3000 Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-3000/archive%40mail-archive.com
