[Python-Dev] RE: Nested scopes resolution -- you can breathe

Tim Peters tim.one at home.com
Fri Feb 23 17:34:58 CET 2001


[Mikael Olofsson]
> Naturally. More seriously though, I like
>
>     from __future__ import something
>
> as an idiom. It gives us a clear reusable syntax to incorporate new
> features before they are included in the standard distribution. It is
> not obvious to me that the proposed alternative
>
>     import __something__
>
> is a way to incorporate something new.

Bingo.  That's why I'm pushing for it.  Also means we only have to create
one artificial module (__future__.py) for this; and besides the doc value,
it occurs to me we *do* have to create a real module anyway so that masses
of tools don't get confused searching for things that look like modules but
don't actually exist.

> Perhaps Py3k should allow
>
>     from __past__ import something
>
> to give us a way to keep some functionality from 2.* that has been
> (will be) changed in Py3k.

Actually, I thought that's something PythonWare could implement as an
extension, to seize the market opportunity created by mean old Guido
breaking all the code he can on a whim <wink>.  Except they'll probably have
to extend the syntax a bit, to make that

    from __past__ import not something

Maybe we should add

    from __future__ import __past__with_not

now to make that easier for them.

> explicit-is-better-than-implicit-ly y'rs

otoh-implicit-manages-to-hide-explicit-suckiness-a-bit-longer-ly
    y'rs  - tim





More information about the Python-list mailing list