> > Please explain how this is a problem. As Steven said, there is NO
> >
> > useful difference. I don't *care* whether it's a package, a module,
> > or
> >
> > whatever. Module with class with static member? Fine. Package with
> >
> > module with class? Also fine. Imported special object that u
On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 6:49 PM, Rick Johnson
wrote:
> Look, maybe nobody has the time to deal with this module, so if you need some
> help, then feel free to ask for my assistance. All Guido has to do is send me
> a private email and say:
>
> """ Hello Rick! Your ideas for packaging of Tkinter
On Monday, January 14, 2013 12:51:50 PM UTC-6, Ian wrote:
> I think the distinction you are trying to make here is based upon the
> submodule's actual source location on the disk. If you have a package
> folder A which contains a file B.py, then you would access that as
> A:B, correct? If on the
On Monday, January 14, 2013 11:34:56 AM UTC-6, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> Since both os and path are modules, you here say that they need a colon
> between them. This contradicts the above when you say the syntax for
> os.path won't change.
But you forgot the rule about accessing module members w
On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 12:35 PM, D'Arcy J.M. Cain wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 11:51:50 -0700
> Ian Kelly wrote:
>> On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 10:22 PM, Rick Johnson
>> wrote:
> ...Whatever
>
>> If you want us to understand the syntax, then you need to define
>
> If you are going to feed the troll
On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 11:51:50 -0700
Ian Kelly wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 10:22 PM, Rick Johnson
> wrote:
...Whatever
> If you want us to understand the syntax, then you need to define
If you are going to feed the trolls can I please ask that you Cc them
or send to them and Cc the list? Tha
On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 11:51 AM, Ian Kelly wrote:
>> Because modules and objects are not the same and someone who is reading the
>> source code NEEDS to know which "path members" are /modules/ and which "path
>> members" are /objects/. And he needs to know that very important
>> information W
On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 10:22 PM, Rick Johnson
wrote:
> You are missing the point of this syntax. The colon is to access MODULE
> NAMESPACE. The dot is to access MODULE MEMBERS. A module CAN BE another
> module's MEMBER.
>
> You are also unable to grasp this simple logical fact: Once you arrive
On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 21:22:57 -0800, Rick Johnson wrote:
> On Saturday, January 12, 2013 12:45:03 AM UTC-6, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>> On Fri, 11 Jan 2013 20:34:20 -0800, Rick Johnson wrote:
>> > [...]
>> So what do you do for, say, os.path? According to the first rule, you
>> must write it as os:pa
On Saturday, January 12, 2013 12:45:03 AM UTC-6, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Jan 2013 20:34:20 -0800, Rick Johnson wrote:
> > [...]
> So what do you do for, say, os.path? According to the first rule, you
> must write it as os:path because path is a module; according to the
> second rule,
Chris Angelico於 2013年1月12日星期六UTC+8下午12時40分36秒寫道：
> On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 3:34 PM, Rick Johnson
>
> wrote:
>
> > *The problem:*
>
> > ... is readability. The current dot syntax used ubiquitously in paths is
> > not conveying the proper information to the reader, and in-fact obfuscating
> > t
On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 6:01 AM, Rick Johnson
wrote:
>
> Python's module/package access uses dot notation.
>
> mod1.mod2.mod3.modN
>
> Like many warts of the language, this wart is not so apparent when first
> learning the language. The dot seems innocently sufficient, however, in
> truth it is
On 12 Jan, 14:34, Rick Johnson wrote:
> If you don't know which names are modules and which names are members
> then how could a programmer possibly use the API in an intelligent way
Your initial argument is that with import's current dot notation, it's
not obvious which is a module or not withou
On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 9:34 PM, Rick Johnson
wrote:
> No the rules are:
> * "Colon" must be used to access a "module" (or a package).
> * "Dot" must be used to access a "module member".
What about module a that does not natively contain module b, but
imports it as a member like so?
a.py
On Fri, 11 Jan 2013 21:46:36 -0800, Rick Johnson wrote:
> On Friday, January 11, 2013 10:40:36 PM UTC-6, Chris Angelico wrote:
>> On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 3:34 PM, Rick Johnson
>
>> > *The problem:*
>> > ... is readability. The current dot syntax used ubiquitously in paths
>> > is not conveying th
On Fri, 11 Jan 2013 20:34:20 -0800, Rick Johnson wrote:
>> > import lib:gui:tkinter:dialogs.SimpleDialog as Blah
>>
>> Which names are packages, modules, classes, methods, functions, or
>> other objects?
>>
>> Why do you have lib:gui but dialogs.SimpleDialog? Is the rule "classes
>> should alw
On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 4:46 PM, Rick Johnson
wrote:
> This is a matter of READABILITY, Christopher. It's one or the other (or the
> status quo):
>
> 1. Enforce naming conventions.
> 2. Enforce path syntax.
> 3. Continue to duck type, like Python is good at.
>
> The choice is yours.
FTFY.
Chris
On Friday, January 11, 2013 10:40:36 PM UTC-6, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 3:34 PM, Rick Johnson
> > *The problem:*
> > ... is readability. The current dot syntax used ubiquitously in paths is
> > not conveying the proper information to the reader, and in-fact obfuscating
> >
On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 3:34 PM, Rick Johnson
wrote:
> *The problem:*
> ... is readability. The current dot syntax used ubiquitously in paths is not
> conveying the proper information to the reader, and in-fact obfuscating the
> code.
Please explain how this is a problem. As Steven said, there
On Friday, 1-11-2013 10:02:34 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> Solution to what? You can only have a solution once you have identified a
> problem. You have not identified a problem. In any case, your suggestion
> is *not* obvious.
The problem is that by using the dot ubiquitously we are obfuscatin
On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 22:01:37 -0800, Rick Johnson wrote:
> Python's module/package access uses dot notation.
>
> mod1.mod2.mod3.modN
>
> Like many warts of the language, this wart is not so apparent when first
> learning the language. The dot seems innocently sufficient, however, in
> truth it
Python's module/package access uses dot notation.
mod1.mod2.mod3.modN
Like many warts of the language, this wart is not so apparent when first
learning the language. The dot seems innocently sufficient, however, in truth
it is woefully inadequate! Observe:
name1.name2.name3.name4.name5
C
22 matches
Mail list logo
