> Bill Janssen wrote: > > >> Ow, that's the first time you describe this particular wrinkle. > > > > Yep. I hesitated to bring it up, but if there's a need for separate > > namespaces for method names, why not do it right? > > what makes you so sure that Python's current design isn't "right" ?
Well, "right" is a highly subjective term, and I think it's a bit foolish to say that a language as widely used, and widely-useful, as Python, isn't "right". But in Py3K, we're talking about what could be improved, and there are *facets* of Python which could better support its use. I think method namespaces are already OK; the question is whether to move these specially-named (for whatever reason) methods to a real namespace (a dict somewhere), rather than using this name-mangling kludge to introduce one. If they're special methods for the VM, as Ivan implied, let's put them in "PythonVM". If they're what operations and built-in functions call, let's use the "operation" namespace suggested by Calvin Speakman. 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
