[Python-ideas] PEP 3155 - Qualified name for classes and functions

[Antoine Pitrou]

On Mon, 7 Nov 2011 11:25:53 -0500
Barry Warsaw <barry at python.org> wrote:

> On Nov 07, 2011, at 05:19 PM, Éric Araujo wrote:
> 
> >OTOH, qname will be easily found in search engine (one of my griefs with
> >the “packaging” module name).
> 
> Are you sure about that?  I.e. have you tried it?
> 
> >-1 on these propositions: A dotted name or path includes the module name
> >for me (or for things like packaging.util.resolve_name).  I’m less
> >affirmative about “full name”; it could mean “full name in one module”,
> >so that __module__ + __fullname__ == the fully qualified name.  This
> >terminology is not terrific: I don’t think it would be good to have a
> >distinction between “full name” (a.b) and “fully qualified name”
> >(module.a.b).  I think “qualified name” and “fully qualified name” are
> >better terms: “qualified” has IMO less assumptions than full (you ask
> >yourself “in what way is it qualified?” and go to the docs, instead of
> >thinking “ah, it’s the full name including the module” or “ah, it’s like
> >__name__ but better, and without the module”), and “fully qualified”
> >builds on “qualified”.
> >
> >(I’m trying to be constructive, not bikeshedding; tell me if I fail.)
> >
> >__qualname__ is less cryptic and not too long; __qualifiedname__ is even
> >less cryptic.
> 
> "scoped" could also be used instead of "qualified".

How about __sname__?
Ok, sorry :-)

Antoine.