[Python-3000] please keep open() as a builtin, and general concerns about Py3k complexity

Steve Howell showell30 at yahoo.com
Wed May 23 05:25:45 CEST 2007

Hi, this is my first post to the list.  My name is
Steve Howell, and I currently work on a system,
largely written in Python, that processes a billion
transactions per year.  On the opposite side of the
sprectrum, I've also had experience in classrooms
using Python as a teaching tool.

In the system I've worked on for the last three years,
we have at least 200 calls to the builtin open()
method.  Ironically, to compile that stat, I wrote a
tiny Python program that used open() as a builtin.

So I'm -201 on the proposal to eliminate it as a
builtin.  I understand the original justification for
the proposal--that it helps you identify modules that
do I/O--but I don't find it difficult in practice to
find modules that use I/O, and I definitely work with
a large enough code base where that comes up.

Although the open() debate seems to have died out, I'd
like to reply to Raymond Hettinger's observation that
"Taking a more global viewpoint, I'm experiencing a
little FUD about Py3k."  I think he's on to something.
 I've been following the Py3k discussions for several
months, and I find myself frequently feeling very
bewildered about the new features being proposed, even
though I'm hardly a newbie.

FWIW one of my favorite accepted PEPs is PEP 3111,
"Simple input built-in in Python 3000."  BTW  it's the
only 3000 series PEP with the word "simple" in the
title.  I realize looking at PEPs and mailing list
archives can skew an outsider's view of how well Py3K
simplifies the language, since simple ideas often
don't require PEPs, and complex ideas often lead to
lengthier debates than simple ones, but I'm not
feeling the simplicity.

Don't pick lemons.
See all the new 2007 cars at Yahoo! Autos.

More information about the Python-3000 mailing list