On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 4:36 AM, Benjamin Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 6:43 PM, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Well, it *is* part of the public interface of io.py, and it *is* the > > implementation of the built-in open() function. So I don't think this > > should be changed. The module's name is so short that I hope people > > won't import * from it. > Ok. It just seems to me to be an accident waiting to happen which we could > easily avoid. >
But people should not blindly do an ``import *``. I agree with Guido it is better for __all__ to reflect the API of the library than to worry about blocking a built-in which happens to be the exact same object. -Brett > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 1:46 PM, Benjamin Peterson > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Is there a reason io.open is in the __all__? It seems to me it would > > > redundant and confusing to import a builtin. > > > > -- > > --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/) > > > > > > -- > Cheers, > Benjamin Peterson > _______________________________________________ > 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/brett%40python.org > > _______________________________________________ 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
