On 28/05/10 09:52, Greg Ewing wrote:
Nick Coghlan wrote:
We can accept PEP 3148 by saying that we're happy to add the extra
namespace level purely for disambiguation purposes,
If that's the only rationale for the namespace, it makes it
sound like a kludge to work around a poor choice of name.
It's the right name though (it really is a futures implementation - I
don't know what else you would even consider calling it). The problem is
that the same word is used to mean different things in other programming
domains (most obviously finance).
Resolving that kind of ambiguity is an *excellent* use of a package
namespace - you remove the ambiguity without imposing any significant
long term cognitive overhead.
Cheers,
Nick.
--
Nick Coghlan | ncogh...@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia
---------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
