Python 2.0

Martijn Faassen m.faassen at
Thu Apr 27 20:22:02 CEST 2000

Justin Sheehy <dworkin at> wrote:
> m.faassen at (Martijn Faassen) writes:

>>       * case insensitivity. foo = Foo() would break
>>     Opinions on them vary; they may reek a bit like Do-What-I-Mean,
>>     but nobody thinks either change would be a disaster.

> Yow.  I would personally consider that one a disaster, but my vote
> doesn't count for much.  I very much like the idiom of an instance
> being a lowercased version of its class name, in some cases.

> I guess it depends on one's definition of "distaster"...

Oh, I'm definitely with you. I like the idiom too. Let's not get
into a war on case sensitivity here though. Status report (AFAIK):

  * It's still unclear if it'll be in p3k. Might be in the editor/environment
    instead, as I and several people argued; for instance in Idle. It's
    catering to absolute newbies, after all. I saw one article that claimed
    that Guido said it would be one of the changes in p3k, but if that
    was right and if Guido changes his mind before the year 3000 is of course
    unclear. :)

  * There's the problem with "what does case insensitivity *mean*
    internationally speaking; do we teach the Python interpreter that, say,
    Egyptian hieroglyphs don't have cases? (if they don't and they're in
    Unicode :).

> There will be plenty of time to argue over this stuff before it
> becomes really relevant, in any case.

Right. Let's cancel this thread right now. I'm sorry I brought it up
in the first case. Just thinking about this "p3k will or won't break code"
thing after reading some claims here that it wouldn't break a lot.


History of the 20th Century: WW1, WW2, WW3?
No, WWW -- Could we be going in the right direction?

More information about the Python-list mailing list