At 10:59 AM 5/6/2009 -0400, Doug Hellmann wrote:
On May 5, 2009, at 10:50 PM, P.J. Eby wrote:
At 12:03 PM 5/6/2009 +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
I don't see any advantage, in the context of this discussion, to having an additional, incompatible naming for full-path-to-a-class.
Setuptools doesn't limit an entry point to being a class, function, or other top-level name within a module. It can be a method of a class, or an attribute of an attribute. The ':' removes any ambiguity as to which part of the name is the module, and which parts are attributes within that module.
Is that level of complexity useful in practice? I can understand how it came to be implemented, but is it actually used by any projects?
I use it; I'm not sure who else does. The particular use case I have (and that's most likely to be shared) is that the calling app or framework wants a callable or function, but the providing app or library implements that callable as a classmethod for convenience.