Thing is that "universal" is an adjective and we tend to use nouns (maybe not by intention) for our modules/objects:
Sys, os, builtins, etc, are all nouns: maybe +1 for __universe__ ? But when you phrase it that way, it doesn't quite make sense. Have we considered special syntax for universal py methods? *.open() ? ::open() (ew!, by the way) ? I'm a huge fan of keeping things legible to people who don't know python, but for some weird reason __universal__ makes me feel like I am writing non-professional software. C -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Nicko van Someren Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 2:17 PM To: Isaac Morland Cc: python-dev@python.org Subject: Re: [Python-Dev] [poll] New name for __builtins__ On 29 Nov 2007, at 14:06, Isaac Morland wrote: > > I wonder how much you could sell the naming rights for? i.e. call it > __[name of sponsor]__. Python's pretty popular, such advertising > should > be worth something.... I'm sorry, but if you call it __Microsoft_Office_2007__ I shall never write a program that uses what we now call __builtins__ ever again! > PS: I actually do like __universal__. Me too. +1 for __universal__ Nicko _______________________________________________ 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/cmason%40vcentertainme nt.com _______________________________________________ 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
