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

[Roman Evstifeev]

On Sat, Nov 5, 2011 at 9:01 PM, Ron Adam <ron3200 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 2011-11-05 at 11:04 -0600, Eric Snow wrote:
>> On Sat, Nov 5, 2011 at 10:32 AM, Éric Araujo <merwok at netwok.org> wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> >> I would like to propose the following PEP for discussion and, if
>> >> possible, acceptance. I think the proposal shouldn't be too
>> >> controversial (I find it quite simple and straightforward myself :-)).
>> >> [snip PEP]
>> >
>> > +1.
>> >
>> > For nested functions, I too think that 'f.<locals>.g' has too many dots;
>> > I like '<local in f>.g' or '<f locals>.g'.
>>
>> I like it too but don't think it's too many dots.
>>
>> The function from which the locals came _could_ be rolled into the
>> brackets.  However, in the context of some object (like the class X to
>> which f belongs), 'X.f.<locals of f>.g' makes more sense in that case
>> than 'X.<locals of f>.g', since the locals is related to f and not X.
>> But, then the f is sort of redundant, so you go back to
>> 'X.f.<locals>.g', and '<locals>' is still sort of unambiguous.
>>
>> The disconnect is that <locals> is an externally anonymous namespace
>> resulting from a call, rather than bound to any external namespace
>> (like an object).  Perhaps it would be appropriate to use
>> 'X.f().<locals>.g' to make that clear.
>
> I think if you consider locals in f as an implementation detail of f's
> name space rather than a sub item of f, it's not as confusing.  It's
> better to think of locals as being part of f, rather than in f.  That is
> why <f locals> makes more sense than f.<locals>.  For example locals is
> in f's frame object, so if you follow that reasoning you get.
> f.<frame>.<locals>,  but I don't think we need all that.
>
> Hmmm...  I think it actually should be spelled...
>
>      f.<local g>
>
> Following a pattern of...
>
>      x                 object x
>      x.f               f in object x
>      x.f.<local g>     local g in f in x
>
> That's both clear and concise.
>
> Cheers,
>   Ron
> _______________________________________________
> Python-ideas mailing list
> Python-ideas at python.org
> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas
>

May i bikeshed a bit more please?

+1 to Ron

1)   C.f.<locals>.g
2)   C.<f locals>.g
3)   C.f.<local g>
I think less verbose and confusing is variant 3