Getting rid of "self."
I think it would be cool if you could refer to instance variables without prefixing with "self." I know noone else thinks like me so Python will never be changed, but maybe you can already do it with Python today? .import sys . .def magic(): .s = "" .for var in sys._getframe(1).f_locals["self"].__dict__: .s += var + " = self." + var + "\n" .return s . .class A: .def __init__(self): .self.hi = "yo" . .def meth(self): .exec(magic()) .print hi . .a = A() .a.meth() It works! exec(magic()) does the needed hi = self.hi. Not so impressive in this case but much cooler when there is more instance variables around. But the solution is very ugly because you have to write exec(magic()) in every method. So I'm asking here if someone knows a better way, maybe using decorators or metaclasses or other black magic? -- mvh Björn -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Getting rid of "self."
BJörn Lindqvist a écrit : I think it would be cool if you could refer to instance variables without prefixing with "self." I know noone else thinks like me so Python will never be changed, but maybe you can already do it with Python today? (snip code) It works! exec(magic()) does the needed hi = self.hi. Not so impressive in this case but much cooler when there is more instance variables around. But the solution is very ugly because you have to write exec(magic()) in every method. So I'm asking here if someone knows a better way, maybe using decorators or metaclasses or other black magic? The better way is definitively to forget about black magic and understand why mandatory 'self' is Good Thing (tm). (Tip : even when [this|self|@|whatsoever] is not mandatory, using it makes for much more readable code.) Bruno -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Getting rid of "self."
BJörn Lindqvist wrote: So I'm asking here if someone knows a better way, maybe using decorators or metaclasses or other black magic? Wait for Python 3k when this will work: class c: def __init__(self): with self: .x = 1 .y = 2 .hi = "Hi there!" Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Brisbane, Australia --- http://boredomandlaziness.skystorm.net -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Getting rid of "self."
You can do it easier now without any black magic: class c: def __init__(s): s.x = 1 s.y = 2 s.hi = "Hi there!" The word "self" is not mandatory. You can type anything you want instead of self, as long as you supply a keyword in its place (it can be "self", "s" or whatever you want). -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Getting rid of "self."
On 7 Jan 2005 08:10:14 -0800, Luis M. Gonzalez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The word "self" is not mandatory. You can type anything you want > instead of self, as long as you supply a keyword in its place (it can > be "self", "s" or whatever you want). You *can*, yes, but please don't, not if there's any chance that anyone other than you are going to have to look at your code. 'self.whatever' is clearly an instance attribute. 's.whatever' isn't clearly anything - the reader will have to go off and work out what the 's' object is. The self prefix is a perfectly good convention. Let's stick to it. -- Cheers, Simon B, [EMAIL PROTECTED], http://www.brunningonline.net/simon/blog/ -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Getting rid of "self."
Simon Brunning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >On 7 Jan 2005 08:10:14 -0800, Luis M. Gonzalez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> The word "self" is not mandatory. You can type anything you want >> instead of self, as long as you supply a keyword in its place (it can >> be "self", "s" or whatever you want). > >You *can*, yes, but please don't, not if there's any chance that >anyone other than you are going to have to look at your code. >'self.whatever' is clearly an instance attribute. 's.whatever' isn't >clearly anything - the reader will have to go off and work out what >the 's' object is. +1. If there is one coding convention which is constant through the Python world, it's that the first argument to a class method is named "self". Using anything else, while legal, is just being different for the sake of being different. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Getting rid of "self."
"BJörn Lindqvist" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] I think it would be cool if you could refer to instance variables without prefixing with "self." I know noone else thinks like me so Python will never be changed, but maybe you can already do it with Python today? ... It works! exec(magic()) does the needed hi = self.hi. Not so impressive in this case but much cooler when there is more instance variables around. But the solution is very ugly because you have to write exec(magic()) in every method. So I'm asking here if someone knows a better way, maybe using decorators or metaclasses or other black magic? [response] Having to specify the instance explicitly is something that Python needs because it isn't a statically typed language. In a statically typed language, all variables are pre-declared, so the compiler knows where they all are. Python's compiler knows about local variables. It doesn't know where any other variables are, so it has to search. Including the instance as one of the method parameters means that the search splits right at the front: either it starts looking up the instance, or it goes up the definition chain (usually empty) to the module namespace and then the builtins. Eliminating "self" would mean it would have to either search the instance before the module and builtins, or search the module and builtins before the instance. This is both a performance issue and a maintenance issue because of the increased possibility of one shadowing the other. This is distinct from the issue of how to spell "self". As another responder has already said, you can spell it any way you want; it's simply whatever you choose to call the first paramteter to the method. Going the other way, the word "self" could become a keyword, removing the necessity of specifying it among the method parameters. While I like the idea, there's enough dislike of the notion that it's not going to happen. John Roth -- mvh Björn -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Getting rid of "self."
Nick Coghlan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Wait for Python 3k when this will work: > > class c: > def __init__(self): > with self: > .x = 1 > .y = 2 > .hi = "Hi there!" Python is looking more like JavaScript every day... -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Getting rid of "self."
Thank you for your replies. But they don't deal with my original question. :) I have read the thousands of posts all saying "self is good" and they are right. But this time I want to be different m-kay? I figure that there might be some way to solve my problem by doing this: .def instancevar2locals(method): .# Do something magic here so that exec(magic()) is automagically run each time .# the function is invoked. .newmethod = method .return newmethod And then in the class definition something like this: .class A: .def __init__(self): .self.hi = "hi" .def meth(self): .print hi .meth = instancevar2locals(meth) But beyond that, I have no idea and I would be grateful if someone would like to help me with it. -- mvh Björn -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Getting rid of "self."
"Roy Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Simon Brunning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 7 Jan 2005 08:10:14 -0800, Luis M. Gonzalez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: The word "self" is not mandatory. You can type anything you want instead of self, as long as you supply a keyword in its place (it can be "self", "s" or whatever you want). You *can*, yes, but please don't, not if there's any chance that anyone other than you are going to have to look at your code. 'self.whatever' is clearly an instance attribute. 's.whatever' isn't clearly anything - the reader will have to go off and work out what the 's' object is. +1. If there is one coding convention which is constant through the Python world, it's that the first argument to a class method is named "self". Using anything else, while legal, is just being different for the sake of being different. Didn't you mean instance method? Class methods are a different beast, and the few examples I've seen seem to use the word "klas". John Roth -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Getting rid of "self."
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, John Roth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >"Roy Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Simon Brunning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>On 7 Jan 2005 08:10:14 -0800, Luis M. Gonzalez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: The word "self" is not mandatory. You can type anything you want instead of self, as long as you supply a keyword in its place (it can be "self", "s" or whatever you want). >>> >>>You *can*, yes, but please don't, not if there's any chance that >>>anyone other than you are going to have to look at your code. >>>'self.whatever' is clearly an instance attribute. 's.whatever' isn't >>>clearly anything - the reader will have to go off and work out what >>>the 's' object is. >> >> +1. >> >> If there is one coding convention which is constant through the Python >> world, it's that the first argument to a class method is named >> "self". Using anything else, while legal, is just being different for >> the sake of being different. > >Didn't you mean instance method? Class methods are a different >beast, and the few examples I've seen seem to use the word "klas". Sorry, yes. My bad. I used to work with a C++ guy who always used "class" when he should have used "instance". It drove me crazy. :-) -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Getting rid of "self."
"BJörn Lindqvist" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Thank you for your replies. But they don't deal with my original question. :) I have read the thousands of posts all saying "self is good" and they are right. But this time I want to be different m-kay? I figure that there might be some way to solve my problem by doing this: [snip ...] But beyond that, I have no idea and I would be grateful if someone would like to help me with it. http://starship.python.net/crew/mwh/hacks/selfless.py -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Getting rid of "self."
On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 14:39:09 +0100, BJÃrn Lindqvist wrote: > It works! exec(magic()) does the needed hi = self.hi. No it doesn't. Try "hi = 'newValue'" and see what happens. So the next step is to write an "unmagic" function. So now how do you add instance variables? There is no way to avoid "self" *and* not pre-declare variables in some fashion as belonging to the instance (as declarations, as sigils, what have you). Given that Python is not, will not, and should not do the latter, I submit that "self" is, at least for you, the lesser of two evils. (I don't consider it evil at all, so it isn't such for me; were I programming in C++ routinely now I'd prefix "this" and dispense with that ugly "m_" garbage. (One of the things I ***hate*** about C++ culture is its acceptance of hideously ugly variable names, but now I'm two parentheticals deep so I probably ought to stop.)) -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Getting rid of "self."
Jeremy Bowers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > were I programming in C++ routinely now I'd prefix "this" and > dispense with that ugly "m_" garbage. (One of the things I ***hate*** > about C++ culture is its acceptance of hideously ugly variable names, > but now I'm two parentheticals deep so I probably ought to stop.)) I'm currently working in a C++ system where they have a wrapper class that provides some transaction locking functionality for member access. The colloquial name for the wrapped "this" pointer is self, i.e. they do "self = wrapper (this)" at the beginning of functions that need it. You can then do "member" to get the bare access or "self.member" to get the locking functionality. It's actually kind of neat, but boy does it play headgames with me when I switch back and forth between that and Python. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Getting rid of "self."
Roy Smith wrote: It's actually kind of neat, but boy does it play headgames with me when I switch back and forth between that and Python. Switching back and forth betwen C++ and Python plays headgames *anyway* }:> Cheers, Nick. Hardware control with Python is nice. . . -- Nick Coghlan | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Brisbane, Australia --- http://boredomandlaziness.skystorm.net -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Getting rid of "self."
"BJörn Lindqvist" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >I think it would be cool if you could refer to instance variables >without prefixing with "self." Others have expressed such a wish -- this comes up perhaps once a year. The bottom line is that as long as Python has separate instance and local namespaces with possibly duplicate names, then there must be a way to tell which namespace a name should be looked up in. The current system is completely consistent with Python's object.attribute system. It would be odd if instance attributes were referred to differently in module level code and function level code. Terry J. Reedy -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Getting rid of "self."
BJörn Lindqvist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >I think it would be cool if you could refer to instance variables >without prefixing with "self." I know noone else thinks like me so >Python will never be changed, but maybe you can already do it with >Python today? > >.import sys >. >.def magic(): >.s = "" >.for var in sys._getframe(1).f_locals["self"].__dict__: >.s += var + " = self." + var + "\n" >.return s >. >.class A: >.def __init__(self): >.self.hi = "yo" >. >.def meth(self): >.exec(magic()) >.print hi >. >.a = A() >.a.meth() > >It works! exec(magic()) does the needed hi = self.hi. Does it? class A: def __init__(self): self.hi = "yo" def meth(self): exec(magic()) print hi hi = "baby" print hi def other(self): exec(magic()) print hi a = A() a.meth() a.other() That's way too fragile to be useful. -- - Tim Roberts, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Providenza & Boekelheide, Inc. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Getting rid of "self."
BJörn Lindqvist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think it would be cool if you could refer to instance variables > without prefixing with "self." I know noone else thinks like me so Some do -- Kent Beck's excellent book on TDD-by-example has a specific grouse against that in the chapter where he develops the unittest module (in Python). But that's how comes Kent is a _Smalltalk_ programmer rather than a _Python_ programmer, see?-) > Python will never be changed, but maybe you can already do it with > Python today? Sure. > impressive in this case but much cooler when there is more instance > variables around. But the solution is very ugly because you have to > write exec(magic()) in every method. So I'm asking here if someone > knows a better way, maybe using decorators or metaclasses or other > black magic? A decorator can entirely rewrite the bytecode (and more) of the method it's munging, so it can do essentially anything that is doable on the basis of information available at the time the decorator executes. You do, however, need to nail down the specs. What your 'magic' does is roughly the equivalent of a "from ... import *" (except it "imports", so to speak, from a namespace that's not a module): it makes a local copy of all names defined in the given namespace, and that's all. The names stay local, any rebinding of a name has no non-local effect whatsoever, etc. Is this indeed what you want -- just give a method this kind of copies? And still have to write self.x=23 for re-binding (without effect on the local copy, note...)? Or what else? Then, you must decide whether this applies to all names the method accesses (which aren't already local). For example, if the method has a statement such as: x = len(y) and does not otherwise as locals len nor y, does this mean x = self.len(self.y) or x = len(self.y) or x = self.len(y) or x = len(y) ...? I.e., which of the names len and y is meant to be a global or builtin, which is meant to be an isntance variable? The decorator must know, because it needs to generate different bytecode. Your approach, injecting an exec statement in the method, makes the compiler punt: the compiler knows, seeing 'exec', that it has no idea about which names are locals or globals any more, so it generates horribly-slow code for completely-general accesses instead of normal local-access-is-optimized code. Is that what you want to do -- slow all of your Python code down by an order of magnitude in order to be able to avoid writing 'self.' in a few cases? If you can give totally complete specifications, I can tell you whether your specs are doable (by a decorator, or other means), how, and at what cost. Without knowing your specs, I can't tell; I can _guess_ that the answer is "probably doable" (as long as you're not demanding the code in the decorator to be an oracle for the future, but are content to limit it to information known when it runs; and as long as you don't care how much you slow everything down) and most definitely not WORTH doing for anything except mental gym. Alex -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Getting rid of "self."
"Alex Martelli" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] BJörn Lindqvist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I think it would be cool if you could refer to instance variables without prefixing with "self." I know noone else thinks like me so Some do -- Kent Beck's excellent book on TDD-by-example has a specific grouse against that in the chapter where he develops the unittest module (in Python). But that's how comes Kent is a _Smalltalk_ programmer rather than a _Python_ programmer, see?-) And of course, the reason it's possible in Smalltalk but not in Python is that Smalltalk requires the declaration of instance variables. Also Smalltalk does not have things like module variables and builtins. The interpreter knows exactly what every name references, which isn't true in Python. John Roth Alex -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Getting rid of "self."
Thank you for your replies. It is very nice to see that a thread you started is generating so much discussion, but please, I have read the previous debates so I know all about what people think about self. Spare the "you shouldn't do that" and "self is here to stay" replies to the threads in which people are actually suggesting changing the syntax. :) I know the solution I presented is not working ideally, because you have to use self to assign to instance attributes like "self.hi = 'baby'". > Sean Ross: > http://starship.python.net/crew/mwh/hacks/selfless.py That's excellent! There is one small problem with the code though: .class Hi(Selfless): .__attrs__ = ["x"] .def __init__(x): .self.x = x In this case, I think the Python interpreter should realise that the parameter x shadows the attribute x. But the selfless code has problems with that. I want it to work exactly like how the situation is handled in Java and C++. > Alex Martelli: >> Björn Lindqvist: >> I think it would be cool if you could refer to instance variables >> without prefixing with "self." I know noone else thinks like me so > Some do -- Kent Beck's excellent book on TDD-by-example has a specific > grouse against that in the chapter where he develops the unittest module I have to get myself that book. > Alex Martelli: > A decorator can entirely rewrite the bytecode (and more) of the method > it's munging, so it can do essentially anything that is doable on the > basis of information available at the time the decorator executes. Which I believe means that the instance variables have to be declared in the class? I am content with declaring them like the selfless approach does: __attrs__ = ["hi", "foo"] It's not optimal because it would lead to some "name duplication" when a class is __init__:ed. .__attrs__ = ["hi", "foo"] .def __init__(_hi, _foo): .hi = _hi .foo = _foo I guess you can solve that adequately by using one of the recipes from the Cookbook that automagically initialises an objects variable depending on which variables was passed in the parameter list. Another alternative would be not to declare the variables in an __attr__ list, and instead let them be "declared" by having them initialised in the __init__. I.e: .def __init__(hi, foo): .self.hi = hi .self.foo = foo When the metaclass then does it magic, it would go through the code of the __init__ method, see the assignments to "self.hi" and "self.foo", decide that "hi" and "foo" are attributes of the object and replace "hi" and "foo" in all other methods with "self.hi" and "self.foo". The downside is that it probably could never be foolproof against code like this: .def __init__(hi, foo): .if hi: .self.hi = hi .else: .self.foo = foo But AFAIK, that example is a corner case and you shouldn't write such code anyway. :) > Alex Martelli: > You do, however, need to nail down the specs. What your 'magic' does > is roughly the equivalent of a "from ... import *" (except it > ... > Then, you must decide whether this applies to all names the method > accesses (which aren't already local). For example, if the method > has a statement such as: > x = len(y) All names should be checked like this: 1. Is the name in the parameter list? If so, do not rebind it. 2. Is the name in the objects attribute list? If so, prepend "self." 3. Do stuff like normal. Example: .class Foo(Selfless): .def __init__(x): .print x .self.x = x*2 .def meth(): .x = x + 10 .print x .def meth2(x): .print x .print self.x .self.x = x . .o = Foo(50) .print o.x .o.meth() .o.meth2(12) .print o.x Outputs: 50 100 110 12 110 12 > Alex Martelli: > If you can give totally complete specifications, I can tell you > whether your specs are doable (by a decorator, or other means), how, > and at what cost. Without knowing your specs, I can't tell; I can > _guess_ that the answer is "probably doable" (as long as you're not > demanding the code in the decorator to be an oracle for the future, This is promising, I'm content with whatever slowdowns necessary as long as I can prove those who say "you can't do it" wrong. :) It seems to me that it should be doable by having the metaclass that modifies the class go through the class and bytecode-rewrite all its methods. So there has to be a big slowdown when the class is created, but after that, it should execute at pure Python speed? That doesn't seem to hard, and pretty robust too since bytecode doesn't change so often. And THEN I'll rewrite python-mode so that it syntax highlights member attributes! It will be cool. -- mvh Björn -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Getting rid of "self."
On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 01:51:07 +0100, BJÃrn Lindqvist wrote: > This is promising, I'm content with whatever slowdowns necessary as long > as I can prove those who say "you can't do it" wrong. :) Since I think I'm the only person in this discussion that said anything about what you can't do, be clear on what I said. You can't have both of undeclared attributes on self and no use of "self", in particular to add new attributes. This is, if you take the time to understand what I mean, trivially true; *somewhere* you need to declare whether a var is local to the function or an instance member. For me, I prefer the explicit "self" and getting rid of "self" now leaves you with the need to declare member variables *somehow*, which I don't consider progress. But no matter what other magic Alex works, you're only going to get one or the other; it's impossible for the compiler to divine what you mean otherwise. My point here isn't that you "can't" hack together code to do something like what you want, and it is certainly a valid exercise in plumbing the depths of Python and learning. My point is that you'll have to pay a price in other ways. You can't make self go away "for free". And that "can't" I do mean. (You weren't necessarily claiming you could. But I thought it still worth saying; even if you weren't trying to remove "self" "for free", others certainly would mean it.) -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Getting rid of "self."
BJörn Lindqvist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: ... > > http://starship.python.net/crew/mwh/hacks/selfless.py > > That's excellent! There is one small problem with the code though: It shows the fundamentals of how to rewrite the bytecode, yes. > .class Hi(Selfless): > .__attrs__ = ["x"] > .def __init__(x): > .self.x = x > > In this case, I think the Python interpreter should realise that the > parameter x shadows the attribute x. But the selfless code has > problems with that. I want it to work exactly like how the situation > is handled in Java and C++. I believe you're referring to the test in rewrite_method: if op.arg < code.co_argcount: raise ValueError, "parameter also instance member!" If you think that parameters that are also instance members should "shadow" instance members, just skip the op.arg cases which are less than code.co_argcount -- those are the parameters. > > Alex Martelli: > > A decorator can entirely rewrite the bytecode (and more) of the method > > it's munging, so it can do essentially anything that is doable on the > > basis of information available at the time the decorator executes. > > Which I believe means that the instance variables have to be declared > in the class? I am content with declaring them like the selfless > approach does: It means the information about which names are names of instance attributes must be available somewhere, be that "declared", "inferred", or whatever. For example, many C++ shops have an ironclad rule that instance attributes, and ONLY instance attributes, are always and invariably named m_. If that's the rule you want to enforce, then you don't necessarily need other declarations or inferences, but rather can choose to infer the status of a name from looking at the name itself, if you wish. "Declarations" or other complications yet such as: > alternative would be not to declare the variables in an __attr__ list, > and instead let them be "declared" by having them initialised in the > __init__. I.e: > > .def __init__(hi, foo): > .self.hi = hi > .self.foo = foo > > When the metaclass then does it magic, it would go through the code of > the __init__ method, see the assignments to "self.hi" and "self.foo", > decide that "hi" and "foo" are attributes of the object and replace > "hi" and "foo" in all other methods with "self.hi" and "self.foo". The OK, but this approach is not compatible with your stated desire, which I re-quote...: > I want it to work exactly like how the situation > is handled in Java and C++. ...because for example it does not deal with any attributes which may be initialized in a *superclass*'s __init__. However, I guess it could be extended at the cost of some further lack of transparency, to obtain just as horrid a mess as you require, where it's impossible for any human reader to guess whether, say, hi = 33 is setting a local variable, or an instance variable, without chasing down and studying the sources of an unbounded number of superclasses. I do not think there is any _good_ solution (which is why many C++ shops have that rule about spelling this m_hi if it's an instance variable, keeping the spelling 'hi' for non-instance variables -- an attempt to get SOME human readability back; a smaller but non-null number of such shops even achieve the same purpose by mandating the use of 'this->hi' -- just the Python rule you want to work around, essentially). The least bad might be to rely on __attrs__, enriching whatever is in the current class's __attr__ with any __attrs__ that may be found in base classes PLUS any member variables specifically set in __init__ -- if you focus on convenience in writing the code, to the detriment of ability to read and understand it; or else, for more readability, demand that __attrs__ list everything (including explicitly attributes coming from subclasses and ones set in any method by explicit "self.whatever = ...") and diagnose the problem, with at least a warning, if it doesn't. Yes, there's redundancy in the second choice, but that's what declarations are all about: if you want to introduce the equivalent of declarations, don't be surprised if redundancy comes with them. > downside is that it probably could never be foolproof against code > like this: > > .def __init__(hi, foo): > .if hi: > .self.hi = hi > .else: > .self.foo = foo > > But AFAIK, that example is a corner case and you shouldn't write such > code anyway. :) I don't see any problem with this code. A static analysis will show that both hi and foo are local variables. Either may be not initialized, of course, but having to deal with variables which are not initialized IS a common problem of C++: you said you want to do things like in C++, so you should be happy to have this problem, too. > > Alex Martelli: > > You do, however, need to nail down the specs. What your 'magic' does > > is roughly the equivalent of a "from ... import *" (except it > > ...
