On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 5:23 AM, Greg Ewing <greg.ewing@canterbury.ac.nz> wrote:
Presumably they would be implemented as module objects, created automatically at interpreter startup instead of being loaded from a file.
In which case "built-in module" might be a better term for them. And their names should start with lower case.
That's cool. YES, lowercase.
Also you wouldn't need new syntax to get names out of them, just the existing import machinery:
from numbers import *
Well, to me there must be a clear partitioning. The stuff in the builtin [module] sets the tone for the whole interpreter environment (and I think python culture itself). If one were to use the standard import language (like in your example), it confuses one "semantically" -- because you're suggesting to treat a it (i.e. a whole class of "things") as something optional. Does that make sense? Thanks, markj