> > Please explain how this is a problem. As Steven said, there is NO
> >
> > useful difference. I don't *care* whether it's a package, a module,
> > or
> >
> > whatever. Module with class with static member? Fine. Package with
> >
> > module with class? Also fine. Imported special object that u
On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 6:49 PM, Rick Johnson
wrote:
> Look, maybe nobody has the time to deal with this module, so if you need some
> help, then feel free to ask for my assistance. All Guido has to do is send me
> a private email and say:
>
> """ Hello Rick! Your ideas for packaging of Tkinter
On Monday, January 14, 2013 12:51:50 PM UTC-6, Ian wrote:
> I think the distinction you are trying to make here is based upon the
> submodule's actual source location on the disk. If you have a package
> folder A which contains a file B.py, then you would access that as
> A:B, correct? If on the
On Monday, January 14, 2013 11:34:56 AM UTC-6, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> Since both os and path are modules, you here say that they need a colon
> between them. This contradicts the above when you say the syntax for
> os.path won't change.
But you forgot the rule about accessing module members w
On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 12:35 PM, D'Arcy J.M. Cain wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 11:51:50 -0700
> Ian Kelly wrote:
>> On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 10:22 PM, Rick Johnson
>> wrote:
> ...Whatever
>
>> If you want us to understand the syntax, then you need to define
>
> If you are going to feed the troll
On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 11:51:50 -0700
Ian Kelly wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 10:22 PM, Rick Johnson
> wrote:
...Whatever
> If you want us to understand the syntax, then you need to define
If you are going to feed the trolls can I please ask that you Cc them
or send to them and Cc the list? Tha
On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 11:51 AM, Ian Kelly wrote:
>> Because modules and objects are not the same and someone who is reading the
>> source code NEEDS to know which "path members" are /modules/ and which "path
>> members" are /objects/. And he needs to know that very important
>> information W
On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 10:22 PM, Rick Johnson
wrote:
> You are missing the point of this syntax. The colon is to access MODULE
> NAMESPACE. The dot is to access MODULE MEMBERS. A module CAN BE another
> module's MEMBER.
>
> You are also unable to grasp this simple logical fact: Once you arrive
On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 21:22:57 -0800, Rick Johnson wrote:
> On Saturday, January 12, 2013 12:45:03 AM UTC-6, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>> On Fri, 11 Jan 2013 20:34:20 -0800, Rick Johnson wrote:
>> > [...]
>> So what do you do for, say, os.path? According to the first rule, you
>> must write it as os:pa
On Saturday, January 12, 2013 12:45:03 AM UTC-6, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Jan 2013 20:34:20 -0800, Rick Johnson wrote:
> > [...]
> So what do you do for, say, os.path? According to the first rule, you
> must write it as os:path because path is a module; according to the
> second rule,
Chris Angelico於 2013年1月12日星期六UTC+8下午12時40分36秒寫道：
> On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 3:34 PM, Rick Johnson
>
> wrote:
>
> > *The problem:*
>
> > ... is readability. The current dot syntax used ubiquitously in paths is
> > not conveying the proper information to the reader, and in-fact obfuscating
> > t
On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 6:01 AM, Rick Johnson
wrote:
>
> Python's module/package access uses dot notation.
>
> mod1.mod2.mod3.modN
>
> Like many warts of the language, this wart is not so apparent when first
> learning the language. The dot seems innocently sufficient, however, in
> truth it is
On 12 Jan, 14:34, Rick Johnson wrote:
> If you don't know which names are modules and which names are members
> then how could a programmer possibly use the API in an intelligent way
Your initial argument is that with import's current dot notation, it's
not obvious which is a module or not withou
On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 9:34 PM, Rick Johnson
wrote:
> No the rules are:
> * "Colon" must be used to access a "module" (or a package).
> * "Dot" must be used to access a "module member".
What about module a that does not natively contain module b, but
imports it as a member like so?
a.py
On Fri, 11 Jan 2013 21:46:36 -0800, Rick Johnson wrote:
> On Friday, January 11, 2013 10:40:36 PM UTC-6, Chris Angelico wrote:
>> On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 3:34 PM, Rick Johnson
>
>> > *The problem:*
>> > ... is readability. The current dot syntax used ubiquitously in paths
>> > is not conveying th
On Fri, 11 Jan 2013 20:34:20 -0800, Rick Johnson wrote:
>> > import lib:gui:tkinter:dialogs.SimpleDialog as Blah
>>
>> Which names are packages, modules, classes, methods, functions, or
>> other objects?
>>
>> Why do you have lib:gui but dialogs.SimpleDialog? Is the rule "classes
>> should alw
On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 4:46 PM, Rick Johnson
wrote:
> This is a matter of READABILITY, Christopher. It's one or the other (or the
> status quo):
>
> 1. Enforce naming conventions.
> 2. Enforce path syntax.
> 3. Continue to duck type, like Python is good at.
>
> The choice is yours.
FTFY.
Chris
On Friday, January 11, 2013 10:40:36 PM UTC-6, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 3:34 PM, Rick Johnson
> > *The problem:*
> > ... is readability. The current dot syntax used ubiquitously in paths is
> > not conveying the proper information to the reader, and in-fact obfuscating
> >
On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 3:34 PM, Rick Johnson
wrote:
> *The problem:*
> ... is readability. The current dot syntax used ubiquitously in paths is not
> conveying the proper information to the reader, and in-fact obfuscating the
> code.
Please explain how this is a problem. As Steven said, there
On Friday, 1-11-2013 10:02:34 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> Solution to what? You can only have a solution once you have identified a
> problem. You have not identified a problem. In any case, your suggestion
> is *not* obvious.
The problem is that by using the dot ubiquitously we are obfuscatin
On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 22:01:37 -0800, Rick Johnson wrote:
> Python's module/package access uses dot notation.
>
> mod1.mod2.mod3.modN
>
> Like many warts of the language, this wart is not so apparent when first
> learning the language. The dot seems innocently sufficient, however, in
> truth it
21 matches
Mail list logo
