I don't want to be rude -- is English your first language? -- but I found this article to be written in particularly baroque prose. I'm not quite sure what your central point is. Arthur <ajsiegel@optonline.net> writes:

No mention of the copy module. Is this open for discussion?

Well, I dunno. If it was my decision, there's no way it would be mentioned in the builtins.

OTOH, functionally, haven't some built-ins been growing copy methods? Could be wrong about that - seem to get that idea somewhere.

No changes here in a long while.

Is it unreasonable to argue that hiding - isn't that is what is being advocated, in essence - something that is arguably conceptually important, cannot properly be considered to be a service to beginners?

I don't think it's unreasonable at all. To me the copy module is something you only need when you really need it, then you go looking for it.

Is it totally out-of-left field to argue that confronting "copy" forces a confrontation with the fundamentals of assignment - perhaps the most subtle concept faced in approaching Python.

Certainly, the failure to understand assignment and erroneous beliefs that the copy module is necessary in a given situation go hand in hand. Assignment in Python *isn't* particularly subtle, though. My impression is that it's people from e.g. C who get tripped up here, not total newbies.

Particularly difficult because the beginner does not know to expect subtleties. I would argue that these subtleties are *always* surprising - particularly and importantly because of an important missing clue. That clue, specifically, the existence of copy.

I had always assumed that the absence of copy()/deepcopy() from built-ins was for 'big boy' reasons.

Another reason might just be that copy() is implemented in Python...

And accepted it as that - feeling, in general, that the big boy issues should override the 'good for beginners' issue. And only take up the cause of copy() to the extent that - on better evidence - it appears to be being handled as it is for paternalistic reasons. I am closer to being a beginner than most.

Have you ever used the copy module? I am *not* a beginner, and have used it *once* (and I can't remember what for, either). Cheers, mwh -- if-you-need-your-own-xxx.py-you-know-where-to-shove-it<wink>-ly y'rs - tim -- Tim Peters dishes out versioning advice on python-dev

I don't want to be rude -- is English your first language? -- but I found this article to be written in particularly baroque prose. I'm not quite sure what your central point is. Arthur <ajsiegel@optonline.net> writes:

No mention of the copy module. Is this open for discussion?

Well, I dunno. If it was my decision, there's no way it would be mentioned in the builtins.

OTOH, functionally, haven't some built-ins been growing copy methods? Could be wrong about that - seem to get that idea somewhere.

No changes here in a long while.

Is it unreasonable to argue that hiding - isn't that is what is being advocated, in essence - something that is arguably conceptually important, cannot properly be considered to be a service to beginners?

I don't think it's unreasonable at all. To me the copy module is something you only need when you really need it, then you go looking for it.

Is it totally out-of-left field to argue that confronting "copy" forces a confrontation with the fundamentals of assignment - perhaps the most subtle concept faced in approaching Python.

Certainly, the failure to understand assignment and erroneous beliefs that the copy module is necessary in a given situation go hand in hand. Assignment in Python *isn't* particularly subtle, though. My impression is that it's people from e.g. C who get tripped up here, not total newbies.

Particularly difficult because the beginner does not know to expect subtleties. I would argue that these subtleties are *always* surprising - particularly and importantly because of an important missing clue. That clue, specifically, the existence of copy.

I had always assumed that the absence of copy()/deepcopy() from built-ins was for 'big boy' reasons.

Another reason might just be that copy() is implemented in Python...

And accepted it as that - feeling, in general, that the big boy issues should override the 'good for beginners' issue. And only take up the cause of copy() to the extent that - on better evidence - it appears to be being handled as it is for paternalistic reasons. I am closer to being a beginner than most.

Have you ever used the copy module? I am *not* a beginner, and have used it *once* (and I can't remember what for, either). Cheers, mwh -- if-you-need-your-own-xxx.py-you-know-where-to-shove-it<wink>-ly y'rs - tim -- Tim Peters dishes out versioning advice on python-dev