Steven D'Aprano added the comment: On 06/08/13 03:08, Mark Dickinson wrote: > > I too find the use of a class that'll never be instantiated peculiar.
I'll accept "unusual", but not "peculiar". It's an obvious extension to classes being first-class objects. We use classes as objects very frequently, we call methods on classes directly (e.g. int.fromhex). This is just a trivial variation where I am using a class-as-object as a function. But if this is really going to be a sticking point, I can avoid using a class. I'll make median a plain function. Will that be acceptable? > As you say, there's no state to be stored. So why not simply have separate > functions `median`, `median_low`, `median_high`, `median_grouped`, etc.? Why have a pseudo-namespace median_* when we could have a real namespace median.* ? I discussed my reasons for this here: http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-ideas/2013-August/022612.html ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue18606> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
