FEEDBACK WANTED: Type/class unification

[Bruce Sass]

On Mon, 30 Jul 2001, Sam Penrose wrote:
> Guido van Rossum wrote:
> > Correct on both counts again.
>
> >> One minor suggestion:
> >> I think it would help if you set a convention for the name
> >> of the first argument in classmethods. Like self for standard
> >> methods. Well, even self can "work" here, too.
>
> > I think 'self' would be confusing.  I'd like to propose 'cls'.
>
> How about an English word or phrase in lieu of YATATL (yet another
> terse acronym to learn)? Insofar as "self" derives from the notion of
> an instance, we want somethign that derives from the notion of one's
> classification.
>
> The GNU-based Roget's Thesaurus at
> <http://humanities.uchicago.edu/forms_unrest/ROGET.html>
> suggests for "class" :
>
> division, category, categorema[obs3], head, order, section;
> department, subdepartment, province, domain.  kind, sort, genus,
> species, variety, family, order, kingdom, race, tribe, caste, sept,
> clan, breed, type, subtype, kit, sect, set, subset; assortment;
> feather, kidney; suit; range; gender, sex, kin.
>
> I like order, genus, and kind. On balance I guess "kind" seems best:
> short, appropriate, and not a term I've noticed used in the corners of
> the language I deal with.

How about "kit": short, easy to pronounce, unused, means...

	A box for working implements. [1913 Webster]


- Bruce