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

[Nick Coghlan]

On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 11:00 AM, Antoine Pitrou <solipsis at pitrou.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Nov 2011 10:24:18 +1000
> Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> It seems to me that "implementation name" would work as a term for
>> Antoine's PEP as well, since it's about providing enough information
>> to locate the actual implementation of the class or function relative
>> to the top level of the module.
>
> I don't really follow this reasoning. There is no other object than the
> "actual implementation"; __name__ and __q[ual]name__ denote the same
> thing. "Implementation name" sounds like a misnomer to me.

Yeah, on further reflection, I agree that the connotations suggesting
a separate implementation object may be too strong for that to be a
reasonable term. That's probably why I dropped it in the first place.

> If __qname__ is too elliptic, let's settle on __qualname__?

"q name" is easy to say, "qual name" is relatively hard to say - if
we're going to abbreviate, it should be to something pronounceable.
I'd say try to summarise this naming discussion into the PEP, but
otherwise stick to the "qualified name" and "__qname__" proposal
(unless/until Guido says otherwise).

Cheers,
Nick.

-- 
Nick Coghlan   |   ncoghlan at gmail.com   |   Brisbane, Australia