Re: Python 3 consistency proposal
Ben Finney a écrit : Steven D'Aprano ste...@remove.this.cybersource.com.au writes: If you *are* willing to do the work, the chances would still be pretty slim. Guido has just rejected a patch adding PEP 8 compliant aliases for types like datetime […] As Guido has quoted before, A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds. Indeed, that quote is prominent in PEP 8 itself. gert gert.cuyk...@gmail.com writes: Not that I can't live without, but I am just wondering why they did not [name built-in types consistently with other classes] in the first place? Because, in the first place, built-in types were disjoint from user-defined classes. The latter could not derive from the former, and it was helpful to know the difference. The reason no longer exists (since built-in types and user types are now in a unified hierarchy), but the difference is well entrenched now and I personally see little benefit in changing it. mode=not a chance Also and FWIW, since there's no functional nor syntaxical differences between a call to a function returning an object and a call to a class, if we where to rename anything, it would be better to drop the MixedCase convention for classes and rename *all* types to all_lower. That way, you can safely rewrite a class as a factory function (or a factory function as a class) without having to choose between breaking the API or violating pep08 !-) /mode -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Python 3 consistency proposal
gert wrote: Rename all built in classes with a capital letter example Str() Int() Object() Make () optional for a function definition class Test: pass def test: pass Any chance Guido would approve this :-) Zero. But I like the idea. Is version 3 really sacrosanct? I wonder how much it's used so far. Colin W. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Python 3 consistency proposal
Rename all built in classes with a capital letter example Str() Int() Object() Make () optional for a function definition class Test: pass def test: pass Any chance Guido would approve this :-) -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Python 3 consistency proposal
Rename all built in classes with a capital letter example Str() Int() Object() Why? Make () optional for a function definition class Test: pass def test: pass Why? Any chance Guido would approve this :-) In my estimation, the chance that Guido would approve this is less than 10^(-26). Cheers, Daniel -- Psss, psss, put it down! - http://www.cafepress.com/putitdown -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Python 3 consistency proposal
On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 16:45:26 -0700, gert wrote: Rename all built in classes with a capital letter example Str() Int() Object() Make () optional for a function definition class Test: pass def test: pass Any chance Guido would approve this :-) Unless you're volunteering to produce a patch, the chances are zero. If you *are* willing to do the work, the chances would still be pretty slim. Guido has just rejected a patch adding PEP 8 compliant aliases for types like datetime, so I think replacing built-ins have all-but zero chance. But if you want to pursue it, the right place is the python-ideas mailing list. Go for it ... but be prepared to justify the change, and not just for consistency. As Guido has quoted before, A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds. -- Steven -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Python 3 consistency proposal
On Mar 25, 1:23 am, Steven D'Aprano ste...@remove.this.cybersource.com.au wrote: On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 16:45:26 -0700, gert wrote: Rename all built in classes with a capital letter example Str() Int() Object() Make () optional for a function definition class Test: pass def test: pass Any chance Guido would approve this :-) Unless you're volunteering to produce a patch, the chances are zero. If you *are* willing to do the work, the chances would still be pretty slim. Guido has just rejected a patch adding PEP 8 compliant aliases for types like datetime, so I think replacing built-ins have all-but zero chance. But if you want to pursue it, the right place is the python-ideas mailing list. Go for it ... but be prepared to justify the change, and not just for consistency. As Guido has quoted before, A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds. Its only foolish because it breaks everything, but it would not be foolish on a syntax level. Not that I can't live without, but I am just wondering why they did not do this in the first place? -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Python 3 consistency proposal
Steven D'Aprano ste...@remove.this.cybersource.com.au writes: If you *are* willing to do the work, the chances would still be pretty slim. Guido has just rejected a patch adding PEP 8 compliant aliases for types like datetime […] As Guido has quoted before, A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds. Indeed, that quote is prominent in PEP 8 itself. gert gert.cuyk...@gmail.com writes: Not that I can't live without, but I am just wondering why they did not [name built-in types consistently with other classes] in the first place? Because, in the first place, built-in types were disjoint from user-defined classes. The latter could not derive from the former, and it was helpful to know the difference. The reason no longer exists (since built-in types and user types are now in a unified hierarchy), but the difference is well entrenched now and I personally see little benefit in changing it. -- \“The number of UNIX installations has grown to 10, with more | `\ expected.” —Unix Programmer's Manual, 2nd Ed., 1972-06-12 | _o__) | Ben Finney -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Python 3 consistency proposal
gert wrote: On Mar 25, 1:23 am, Steven D'Aprano ste...@remove.this.cybersource.com.au wrote: On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 16:45:26 -0700, gert wrote: Rename all built in classes with a capital letter example Str() Int() Object() Make () optional for a function definition class Test: pass def test: pass Any chance Guido would approve this :-) Unless you're volunteering to produce a patch, the chances are zero. No. He just made clear today that he values stability over non-functional consistency changes -- especially now that 3.0 is out. If you *are* willing to do the work, the chances would still be pretty slim. Guido has just rejected a patch adding PEP 8 compliant aliases for types like datetime, so I think replacing built-ins have all-but zero chance. But if you want to pursue it, the right place is the python-ideas mailing list. Go for it ... but be prepared to justify the change, and not just for consistency. As Guido has quoted before, A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds. Its only foolish because it breaks everything, but it would not be foolish on a syntax level. Not that I can't live without, but I am just wondering why they did not do this in the first place? As I remember, int, str, etc, once *were* functions (or at best types) rather than callable class objects. Before 2.2, built-in types and user-defined classes were separate categories of entities. tjr -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
