[Python-Dev] Committing PEP 3155

Antoine Pitrou solipsis at pitrou.net
Sat Nov 19 00:54:39 CET 2011

On Fri, 18 Nov 2011 18:15:28 -0500
Barry Warsaw <barry at python.org> wrote:
> On Nov 18, 2011, at 09:14 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> >I haven't seen any strong objections, so I would like to go ahead and
> >commit PEP 3155 (*) soon. Is anyone against it?
> >
> >(*) "Qualified name for classes and functions"
> >    http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-3155/
> I'm still not crazy about the attribute name, although I appreciate you
> including the discussion in the PEP. 

Well, the other propositions still seem worse to me. "Qualified" is
reasonably accurate, and "qualname" is fairly short and convenient (I
would hate to type "__qualifiedname__" or "__qualified_name__" in full).
In the same vein, we have __repr__ which may seem weird at first
sight :)

> Have you identified a BDFOP that might
> be able to pronounce on the choice?

No.  Perhaps I was irenic in hoping that no opposition == no need to
get an official pronouncement :-)

> The PEP says that the qualified name deliberately does not include the module
> name, but it doesn't explain why.  I think it should (explain why).
> I'd like the PEP to explain why this is a better solution than re-establishing
> introspectability that was available through unbound methods.

I've added explanations for these two points. Do they satisfy your



More information about the Python-Dev mailing list