Brett Cannon wrote: > I am fine with changing the built-in types, but changing the built-in > singletons just looks *really* odd to me. So odd that I just don't > want to see them changed. I mean when I think of constants, I think > of a variable that references an object and that reference never > changes. The built-ins you are referencing, though, are singletons: > named objects that are not variables.
In behaviour and intended usage, they are much more like constants than like classes, though. > So keeping their naming scheme > as-is does not feel like a breaking of the rules to me since they are > not treated the same (especially at the C level). I don't know if we share the same philosophy on this, but i don't think the C level should play a big role here -- the names in Python programs should express how something works (and more importantly how it is intended to be used) at the Python level, not details under the hood. On Fri, 30 Dec 2005, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote: > Actually, I thought some of them would become reserved words in P3k, > anyway. That would be cool. If so, it would make sense for them to be all in lowercase. -- ?!ng _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
