On Tue, Sep 02, 2008 at 10:55:54PM +0000, Marc 'BlackJack' Rintsch wrote: > On Tue, 02 Sep 2008 18:15:07 -0400, Derek Martin wrote: > > >> Classes represent "things", and class names should be nouns. > > > > Is that a law? > > It's a common guideline.
Right. It's a guideline. > > Classes are instantiated by invoking their class names as a function > > call -- the computing equivalent of a verb. Why then, must they be > > named as nouns? Can you not, in fact, have classes which describe (or > > model) actions? Wouldn't you name them using verbs if you did? > > Me personally no. I would use `FooAction` instead of `Foo` or something > similar. Maybe you would, but I think a lot of folks would just use the action name (i.e. the verb). > And if they model an action there must be some way to activate > the action That's a reasonable assumption, but as I also said, the object might just describe the action -- essentially the equivalent of a struct in C. > but the instances of `Popen` are no actions. There's no way to > "execute" a `Popen` instance. Yes there is... you execute it when you instantiate the object. At the time of instantiation, you "open" the "P" (pipes). For an object which describes an action, I think it's perfectly sensible that instantiation is when the action occurs, though there could be other times (e.g. if the object had an "execute" method) which make as much sense. > > My point is, if you don't think Popen is a good name for the class, > > that's your opinion, but it is only that: an opinion. > > Like your opinion that it *is* a good name. Yes, exactly. > > Yet some of you state your case as if it is incontrovertable fact. > > I've given a good case as to why it IS a good name (one which I > > genuinely support), and disagree as you may, none of the points any of > > you have made invalidate or even weaken my argument. > > Maybe from your POV. Facts: It doesn't use the `popen()` function So? Neither does the C version of popen(), but that function is still called popen()! :-D As I've already said a few times now, it is conceptually based on popen(). The fact that it doesn't use popen() is not interesting; it (or the portion of it that corresponds to what popen() does) is implemented almost exactly the same way as the C popen() function (except in Python, rather than C). That, to me, is much more interesting. pclose() does what Popen.wait() does, essentially. Sure, the class has a few extre bells and whistles that the C implementation doesn't have, but: > it gives something more complex than a simple pipe Gosh, one would hope that it would be universally true that an object-oriented implementation of something that was originally designed using conventional programming techniques would provide more than one piece of the conventional implementation... We might even hope that it would improve upon 40-year-old implementations, wherever possible... > to three file objects, more attributes and methods), the function used on > Windows under the hood is called `CreateProcess()` not `CreatePipe()`. How does Windows implement popen()? [I think they call it _popen() though...] > `Popen` creates a process and represents a proxy object to communicate > with it, so `Process` is a good name for that concept/"thing". I disagree; the point of that process creation is the communication between the two processes. Calling it a process does not reflect this very important aspect of the object. The Popen object is not a process; it is a collection of pipes and methods used to communicate with one. > It's a way more self explaining name, even for people who know the > `popen()` function I, and apparently the maintainers (at least at the time they added this thing) don't agree. In fact I think it's quite the opposite. If I came across such a "process" object without knowing what it was, I would expect that a process object described a running process, i.e. gave information about things like executable path name, cpu and memory utilization, perhaps a list of all open file descriptors (but not just three specific ones), etc; or something similar. This object provides none of that. It does not, in fact, describe a process at all. It is quite distinct and different from the concept of a process, indeed. > because there's a concept called "process" but none called "popen". Anything that exists can be conceptualized and therefore is a concept. The popen concept exists, and is more than just a concept; it has a concrete implementation in C AND Python and numerous other languages. Verbs can be concepts too. -- Derek D. Martin http://www.pizzashack.org/ GPG Key ID: 0x81CFE75D
pgpeShX0WeeW7.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
