Package name with '.' in them: Python Bug ?

Terry Reedy tjreedy at
Sat Mar 20 07:41:39 CET 2004

"Hung Jung Lu" <hungjunglu at> wrote in message
news:8ef9bea6.0403192150.57dbddef at
> > "Yannick Patois" <patois at> wrote in message
> > > Under some naming conditions of module files, it seems that python
> > > class static variables values.
> ---------------------------------
> "John Roth" <newsgroups at> wrote in message
news:<105mmlt1ld7jvb9 at>...
> > There is no such thing as a static variable in Python.
> ---------------------------------
> "Terry Reedy" <tjreedy at> wrote in message
news:<mailman.163.1079717552.742.python-list at>...
> > Since 'static variable' is not a Python concept, I do not know what you
> > mean.
> ---------------------------------
> A little hyphen would have made a whole world of difference. The
> original poster was referring to "class-static variable",

In Python, that is a meaningless term to me.

>That's the standard jargon in languages like C++ or Java.

Python is neither C++ nor Java.  It's data model is quite different.
Imported jargon is meaningless to those not familiear with is.  Adding the
word 'static' to 'class attribute' or 'class variable' adds nothing since
there is no differentiation from a hypothetical 'non-static' class

> To be fair, the same jargon persists in Python when it comes to
> staticmethod(): staticmethod in Python 2.3 has nothing to do with
> "function staticity", but rather it refers to "class statiticity".

'class statiticity'? is meaningless to me.  Actually, 'staticmethod' is
something of a misnomer since the effect of staticmethod(function) is to
mark the function as one to *not* be wrapped as a method but to be left
alone as a function, just like function attributes of instances.
'unwrapped' might have been better.  I think there was an overstriving for
parallelism with 'classmethod', which is an accurate and meaningful term
(the contrast being with 'instance method').

Terry J. Reedy

More information about the Python-list mailing list