On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 2:56 PM, R. David Murray <rdmur...@bitdance.com> wrote: > On Wed, 29 May 2013 20:10:44 +0200, Antoine Pitrou <solip...@pitrou.net> > wrote: >> On Wed, 29 May 2013 12:55:01 -0400 >> Brett Cannon <br...@python.org> wrote: >> > > Perhaps 'managed_module'? >> > >> > managed_module is better than managed_initialization. >> >> I don't understand how it's "managed". "manage", "manager", etc. is the >> kind of dumb words everybody uses when they don't manage (!) to explain >> what they're talking about. >> >> My vote is for "module_to_init", "uninitialized_module", >> "pristine_module", etc.
I don't like unititionalized_module or pristine_module as that isn't guaranteed thanks to reloading; seems misleading. > > Actually, you are right, 'managed_module' isn't much if any better > than those. > > Our problem is that there are two concepts we are trying to cram into > one name: what the context manager is managing, and the object that the > context manager gives you on entry to the with block. There probably > isn't a good answer. > > I suppose that one approach would be to have a module_initializer context > manager return self and then separately call a method on it it to actually > load the module inside the with body. But adding more typing to solve > a naming issue seems...odd. That would make me feel icky, so I won't do it. So module_to_init it is unless someone can convince me the bikeshed is a different colour. _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
