+1 on the changes

On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 6:10 PM, Anthony Scopatz <scop...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 5:48 PM, Maarten Sneep <maarten.sn...@xs4all.nl>wrote:
>>
>>
>> Although for the example you give here I would prefer to change to
>> tb.open(). Namespaces exist for a reason, I think.
>>
>
> This is a good point, and I would be in favor of this rename if other
> people were as well...
>
> If you do a "from tables import *" and the tb.open() overwrites the
> builtin open(), you can always regain the builtin by doing "del open".
>  That said, I agree with you that we shouldn't be 'import *'ing.  It sets a
> bad example ;)
>


As a compromise, maybe open() and open_file() could both be defined and
equivalent but only add open_file() as part of the module's __all__ list?
Namespaces are great but if someone is using import *, they probably don't
know that yet and this would be a rude introduction.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Live Security Virtual Conference
Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and 
threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions 
will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware 
threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/
_______________________________________________
Pytables-users mailing list
Pytables-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/pytables-users

Reply via email to