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

[Nick Coghlan]

No, Guido already accepted the PEP with the existing spelling.

--
Nick Coghlan (via Gmail on Android, so likely to be more terse than usual)
On Nov 28, 2011 7:34 AM, "Roman Evstifeev" <someuniquename at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
> _______________________________________________
> Python-ideas mailing list
> Python-ideas at python.org
> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-ideas/attachments/20111128/6a9e0da2/attachment.html>