On Wed, 03 Sep 2008 03:09:18 -0400, Derek Martin wrote: > On Wed, Sep 03, 2008 at 06:40:10AM +0000, Marc 'BlackJack' Rintsch > wrote: >> On Tue, 02 Sep 2008 19:54:12 -0400, Derek Martin wrote: >> >> >> And if they model an action there must be some way to activate the >> >> action >> > >> > That's a reasonable assumption, but as I also said, the object might >> > just describe the action -- essentially the equivalent of a struct in >> > C. >> >> ``struct``\s in C describe *actions*!? Functions do this. > > struct run { > int speed; > direction_type direction; > };
Guess what, I don't like the name because it doesn't describe an action but a state of, e.g. a `Runner`. :-) >> >> but the instances of `Popen` are no actions. There's no way to >> >> "execute" a `Popen` instance. >> > >> > Yes there is... you execute it when you instantiate the object. >> >> But then the instance itself isn't an action but the result of one. > > So? A class doesn't represent an action, remember? It represents a > thing. Isn't that what you said? Yes and that's why the type name should not describe the action but the the thing that results from it. IMHO. But I said that already. >> >> Maybe from your POV. Facts: It doesn't use the `popen()` function >> > >> > So? Neither does the C version of popen(), but that function is >> > still called popen()! >> >> Now you lost me. The C version of `popen()` isn't recursive, why on >> earth should it be, so what's that statement supposed to mean!? > > Sorry, did I go too fast for you? Your "facts" seem to be suggesting > that for Python's Popen class to be named Popen, it should use the C > popen() function. So you imply that I think any function should only have a name of a function it uses under the hood!? I still don't get that sentence. > Sorry, but you are contradicting yourself (repeatedly), and your > arguments don't make any sense. I don't contradict myself. Either you are playing silly naming games with `popen()` on different levels ("concept", Popen, popen() (Python), popen() (C)) or you just don't *want* to understand my arguments. I understand your arguments why you think `Popen` is a proper name, but don't share them. It's okay for me if you don't like my arguments against it and for something like `Process`, but telling me they don't make any sense and patronizing me doesn't make your arguments more convincing. Ciao, Marc 'BlackJack' Rintsch -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list