On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 12:21:08PM -0400, Adrian Holovaty wrote: > On 9/15/05, Sune Kirkeby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Then one could put "def gnah" in MODULE_LEVEL instead of > > "def _module_gnah" in the model, also exceptions and the > > module_constants that cannot be auto-deduced could > > go in there... > > That's a great idea. It would make it more explicit that module-level > magic is happening, and it would remove the need for the ugly > "_module" prefixes. And it can be backwards-compatible (for at least a > short while), because we could support both approaches. What do people > think?
It's concise, seems to be more consistent, and it saves typing without being more obscure (I think - simple case looks good). What's not to like? Belated comment on the module vs. class thing: IMO this is more syntactic sugar, and even for that it's more "how much sugar?" rather than sugar or not. Both ways there's a namespace that contains functions that are class factories. One way its capitalized, the other it's not. :-) De gustibus... -- The dualist evades the frame problem - but only because dualism draws the veil of mystery and obfuscation over all the tough how-questions -- Daniel C. Dennett
