On Nov 18, 2011, at 09:14 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote: >I haven't seen any strong objections, so I would like to go ahead and >commit PEP 3155 (*) soon. Is anyone against it? > >(*) "Qualified name for classes and functions" > http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-3155/
I'm still not crazy about the attribute name, although I appreciate you including the discussion in the PEP. Have you identified a BDFOP that might be able to pronounce on the choice? Or perhaps Guido would like to weigh in? The PEP says that the qualified name deliberately does not include the module name, but it doesn't explain why. I think it should (explain why). I'd like the PEP to explain why this is a better solution than re-establishing introspectability that was available through unbound methods. Cheers, -Barry _______________________________________________ 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
