On 5/17/07, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 5/17/07, Chris Monson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Would other IO builtins also move, like (formerly raw_) input and > print? What about the file type? The file type is already gone in py3k. > it seems to me that if the rationale is to make use of IO > identifiable, then all IO functions would have to move into the io > module. What am I missing? I guess a refinement of the point is that you need the io module to create new I/O streams, while input() and print() act on existing streams. Code that makes read() and write() calls doesn't need to import the io module either, so we're not really making all I/O identifiable, just the open() calls.
Aha. Of course, now that you say all of that, it seems obvious. :-) - C --Guido
> - C > > On 5/17/07, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Do people think it would be too radical if the built-in open() > > function was removed altogether, requiring all code that opens files > > to import the io module first? This would make it easier to identify > > modules that engage in I/O. > > > > -- > > --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/) > > _______________________________________________ > > Python-3000 mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-3000 > > Unsubscribe: > > http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-3000/shiblon%40gmail.com > > > -- --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)
_______________________________________________ Python-3000 mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-3000 Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-3000/archive%40mail-archive.com
