On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 05:13, <rdmur...@bitdance.com> wrote: > On Tue, 3 Mar 2009 at 06:01, Ivan KrstiÄ~G wrote: > >> On Mar 2, 2009, at 7:08 PM, Steve Holden wrote: >> >>> > > PS.: so is datetime.datetime a builtin then? :) >>> > > Another historic accident. Like socket.socket. :-( >>> > >>> A pity this stuff wasn't addressed for 3.0. Way too late now, though. >>> >> >> >> It may be too late to rename the existing accidents, but why not add >> consistently-named aliases (socket.Socket, datetime.DateTime, etc) and >> strongly encourage their use in new code? >> > Or make the old names aliases for the new names and start a PendingDeprecationWarning on the old names so they can be switched in the distant future?
> > As a user I'd be +1 on that. In fact, I might even start using 'as' > in my own code for that purpose right now. I've always felt vaguely > confused and disturbed whenever I imported 'datetime', but until this > discussion I didn't realize why :) Thinking about it, I know I've > written 'from datetime import DateTime' a number of times and then had > to go back and fix my code when I tried to run it. And I'm sure that > sometimes when that happens I've had to (re)read the docs (or do a 'dir') > to find out why my import wasn't working. > > Having said all that out loud, I think I might be stronger than a +1 on > this idea. I'd be willing to help with doc and even code patches once > I finish learning how to contribute properly. > +1 from me to fix these little mishaps in naming in both modules. -Brett
_______________________________________________ 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
