Duncan Booth wrote: > John Salerno wrote: > > > Just wondering if this will ever happen, maybe in 3.0 when print becomes > > a function too? It would be a nice option to have it available without > > importing it every time, but maybe making it a builtin violates some > > kind of pythonic ideal? > > There are so many things which *could* be builtins, and it really is better > not to pollute the global namespace with more than absolutely necessary. > > Personally I'd just like to see 'python' a builtin shorthand for importing > a name you aren't going to use much > e.g. > > python.pprint.pprint(x)
I think that's what the py.lib people have done with their py.std module: http://codespeak.net/py/current/doc/misc.html#the-py-std-hook (At least, it looks like it; I've never used it myself). TJG -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
