Oh, sorry for the noise. I thought people were still arguing about the
name issue, but it was in fact 5-day late emails that I am still
receiving. (Gmail seems to have delivery issues lately...)
-- Alexandre
On Dec 4, 2007 12:49 PM, Alexandre Vassalotti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I just want to
I just want to let you all know that the name issue was settled and
committed to py3k branch a few days ago. It was chosen to simply
rename the module __builtin__ to builtins.
-- Alexandre
On Nov 29, 2007 6:15 AM, Nick Coghlan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Given that the *effect* of __builtins__ i
Guido van Rossum wrote:
> On Dec 2, 2007 7:40 AM, Nick Coghlan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Just for the record, I also like the idea of __builtins__ being a magic
>> alias for the boringly-but-practically named builtins module.
>
> [Imagine me jumping up and down and screaming at the top of my l
Guido van Rossum schrieb:
> On Dec 2, 2007 7:40 AM, Nick Coghlan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Just for the record, I also like the idea of __builtins__ being a magic
>> alias for the boringly-but-practically named builtins module.
>
> [Imagine me jumping up and down and screaming at the top of my
On Dec 2, 2007 7:40 AM, Nick Coghlan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Just for the record, I also like the idea of __builtins__ being a magic
> alias for the boringly-but-practically named builtins module.
[Imagine me jumping up and down and screaming at the top of my lungs
out of frustration:]
BUT T
Fred Drake wrote:
> I suspect that's indistinguishable from everyone being tired of the
> discussion, knowing that you're going to pick something reasonable in
> spite of our yammering.
What Fred said. It's Guido's bikeshed, he can choose the colour :)
Just for the record, I also like the ide
Georg Brandl wrote:
> Done, see #1535.
I've written a 2to3 fixer, see #1535.
Christian
___
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/a
Guido van Rossum schrieb:
>> > On Nov 30, 2007, at 6:05 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>> >> It's almost as if nobody has seen my proposal to leave __builtins__
>> >> alone and rename the __builtin__ module instead.
>
>> Fred Drake wrote:
>> > +1 for a module named "builtin", or something similarly o
Terry Reedy wrote:
> "Greg Ewing" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> | I think the situation with __main__ is different from __builtin__,
>
> I effectively agreed by not disputing Guido's response ;-)
Very cunning. But I was even more cunning, and didn't even *consi
"Greg Ewing" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
| I think the situation with __main__ is different from __builtin__,
I effectively agreed by not disputing Guido's response ;-)
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.o
At 06:16 PM 11/30/2007 -0500, Fred Drake wrote:
>On Nov 30, 2007, at 6:05 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> > It's almost as if nobody has seen my proposal to leave __builtins__
> > alone and rename the __builtin__ module instead.
>
>
>I suspect that's indistinguishable from everyone being tired of the
On Nov 30, 2007 3:16 PM, Fred Drake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Nov 30, 2007, at 6:05 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> > It's almost as if nobody has seen my proposal to leave __builtins__
> > alone and rename the __builtin__ module instead.
>
>
> I suspect that's indistinguishable from everyone b
On Nov 30, 2007 3:59 PM, Greg Ewing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Terry Reedy wrote:
> > The only problem would be if someone put
> > the incantation into a non-main module named 'main.py', but the same is
> > true today of '__main__.py'. And I would consider either a buggy practice.
>
> I often pu
Terry Reedy wrote:
> The only problem would be if someone put
> the incantation into a non-main module named 'main.py', but the same is
> true today of '__main__.py'. And I would consider either a buggy practice.
I often put the "real" main code into a separate module, so
that it gets compiled
> > On Nov 30, 2007, at 6:05 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> >> It's almost as if nobody has seen my proposal to leave __builtins__
> >> alone and rename the __builtin__ module instead.
> Fred Drake wrote:
> > +1 for a module named "builtin", or something similarly obscure.
On Nov 30, 2007 3:42 PM,
Fred Drake wrote:
> On Nov 30, 2007, at 6:05 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>> It's almost as if nobody has seen my proposal to leave __builtins__
>> alone and rename the __builtin__ module instead.
>
>
> I suspect that's indistinguishable from everyone being tired of the
> discussion, knowing tha
On Nov 30, 2007 4:40 PM, Oleg Broytmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 30, 2007 at 03:05:18PM -0800, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> > On Nov 30, 2007 2:17 PM, Nicko van Someren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > +1 for __universal__
> >
> > It's almost as if nobody has seen my proposal to leave
On Fri, Nov 30, 2007 at 03:05:18PM -0800, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> On Nov 30, 2007 2:17 PM, Nicko van Someren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > +1 for __universal__
>
> It's almost as if nobody has seen my proposal to leave __builtins__
> alone and rename the __builtin__ module instead.
I saw it
On Nov 30, 2007, at 6:05 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> It's almost as if nobody has seen my proposal to leave __builtins__
> alone and rename the __builtin__ module instead.
I suspect that's indistinguishable from everyone being tired of the
discussion, knowing that you're going to pick somethi
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Nov 30, 2007, at 6:05 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> On Nov 30, 2007 2:17 PM, Nicko van Someren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> +1 for __universal__
>
> It's almost as if nobody has seen my proposal to leave __builtins__
> alone and rename the __built
PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Nicko van Someren
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 2:17 PM
To: Isaac Morland
Cc: python-dev@python.org
Subject: Re: [Python-Dev] [poll] New name for __builtins__
On 29 Nov 2007, at 14:06, Isaac Morland wrote:
>
> I wonder how much you could s
On Nov 30, 2007 2:17 PM, Nicko van Someren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> +1 for __universal__
It's almost as if nobody has seen my proposal to leave __builtins__
alone and rename the __builtin__ module instead.
--
--Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)
_
On 29 Nov 2007, at 14:06, Isaac Morland wrote:
>
> I wonder how much you could sell the naming rights for? i.e. call it
> __[name of sponsor]__. Python's pretty popular, such advertising
> should
> be worth something
I'm sorry, but if you call it __Microsoft_Office_2007__ I shall never
w
Oleg Broytmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Nov 30, 2007 at 11:22:03AM +1300, Greg Ewing wrote:
>> The next step up from global would be __galactic__.
>
>Let me skip __universe[al]__ and go directly to The Ultimate
>Questions:
So maybe it should be called __42__?
Bernhard
On Nov 29, 2007 11:54 AM, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But then I thought, what if we renamed the __builtin__ module instead
> to builtins, and left __builtins__ alone?
Hmm. __builtins__ is a magic hook, but __builtin__-the-module isn't
the thing it hooks, exactly, not the way __
On Nov 29, 2007 3:12 PM, Terry Reedy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Guido van Rossum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> | But then I thought, what if we renamed the __builtin__ module instead
> | to builtins, and left __builtins__ alone?
> |
> | In Python 0.1, __builtin
2007/11/29, Greg Ewing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> __ubiquitous__
>
Uh! Great!
+1
--
.Facundo
Blog: http://www.taniquetil.com.ar/plog/
PyAr: http://www.python.org/ar/
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/l
"Guido van Rossum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
| But then I thought, what if we renamed the __builtin__ module instead
| to builtins, and left __builtins__ alone?
|
| In Python 0.1, __builtin__ *was* called builtin, and I think the
| reason for renaming it wasn't p
> __the_dictionary_where_all_the_builtins_are_now__
__the_entry_formerly_known_as_builtins__
--
Greg
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/option
Another idea:
__ubiquitous__
--
Greg
___
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
On Fri, Nov 30, 2007 at 11:22:03AM +1300, Greg Ewing wrote:
> The next step up from global would be __galactic__.
Let me skip __universe[al]__ and go directly to The Ultimate Questions:
Is there __life__ after __death__? Does __Deity__ exist? What attributes,
properties and keys has __He__ got?
Nick Coghlan wrote:
> why not call it __implicit__?
But isn't __explicit__ better than __implicit__? :-)
I tend to agree about __root__, though -- it just
doesn't seem quite right somehow.
--
Greg
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http
The next step up from global would be __galactic__.
--
Greg
___
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
I nearly choked on my coffee when I read the "naming rights" suggestion. :-)
Then I started leaning towards __universal__.
But then I thought, what if we renamed the __builtin__ module instead
to builtins, and left __builtins__ alone?
In Python 0.1, __builtin__ *was* called builtin, and I think
At 11:16 PM 11/29/2007 +1000, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>Function locals, module globals and program universals would make more
>sense to me - outer layers have a broader scope than inner layers.
+1 for __universal__
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@py
On Thu, Nov 29, 2007 at 10:27:37AM -0500, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> > Perhaps someone here can draw some inspiration from __monty__ python's
> > flying __circus__. It would be nice to have a name with a pythonic
> > __ground__.
>
> Clearly then, it should be called __bruce__.
No, __spam__!
__Ole
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Nov 29, 2007, at 8:47 AM, Graham Horler wrote:
> Perhaps someone here can draw some inspiration from __monty__ python's
> flying __circus__. It would be nice to have a name with a pythonic
> __ground__.
Clearly then, it should be called __bruce__
On Thu, 29 Nov 2007, Graham Horler wrote:
> Perhaps someone here can draw some inspiration from __monty__ python's
> flying __circus__. It would be nice to have a name with a pythonic
> __ground__.
>
> Unfortunately that show is not my __staple__ entertainment, and although
> I have a __general__
Are we scraping the __bottom__ of the English language __barrel__?
Perhaps someone here can draw some inspiration from __monty__ python's
flying __circus__. It would be nice to have a name with a pythonic
__ground__.
Unfortunately that show is not my __staple__ entertainment, and although
I hav
Nick Coghlan wrote:
> Function locals, module globals and program universals would make more
> sense to me - outer layers have a broader scope than inner layers.
__universal__ rhymes with the other __*al__ names, too. I'm shifting my
vote from __root__ to __universal__. All hail the Aussies! :)
C
Christian Heimes wrote:
> I tend to agree that local, nonlocal, global and the-other-thingie are
> more like the layers of an onion than a tree. It makes sense to me. The
> name lookup starts at the local level and goes all the way out until it
> reaches the universal level. Or does it go in until
This is an interesting thread, here is my 1c :-)
Unless one is feeling chronologically challenged, it is always the
__last__ layer looked in as Christian Heimes described, so maybe
__lastns__ or __latter__, or even __zns__.
Perhaps __final__ or __finalns__ sounds too similar to "finally:".
How a
On Nov 28, 2007 4:20 PM, Christian Heimes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What name do you prefer? I'm +1 with Raymond on __root__ but I'm still
> open for better suggestions.
Perhaps __basic__?
Fredrik
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
htt
Neil Toronto wrote:
>> Since Python 3.0 supports all unicode chars I vote for __überglobal__.
>
> Make it untypeable to most Americans so as to discourage use? If that's
> what we're going for, I suggest the somewhat more self-documenting and
> less impossible __the_dictionary_where_all_the_buil
Given that the *effect* of __builtins__ is to make the contents of the
__builtin__ module implicitly available in every module's global
namespace, why not call it __implicit__?
I really don't like all of these __root__ inspired names, because
__builtin__ isn't the root of any Python hierarchy t
Christian Heimes wrote:
> Greg Ewing wrote:
>> __uberglobal__
>
> Since Python 3.0 supports all unicode chars I vote for __überglobal__.
Make it untypeable to most Americans so as to discourage use? If that's
what we're going for, I suggest the somewhat more self-documenting and
less impossible
Greg Ewing wrote:
> __uberglobal__
Since Python 3.0 supports all unicode chars I vote for __überglobal__.
Christian
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org
On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 16:20:05 +0100, you wrote:
>What name do you prefer? I'm +1 with Raymond on __root__ but I'm still
>open for better suggestions.
how about making it (a little bit) more explicit with
__rootdict__ or
__root_dict__
--
Ton
___
Python
On Nov 28, 2007 10:11 PM, Ron Adam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Keeping __root__ relatively short has the benefit of being able to easily
> use "__root__.name" in the case where "name" was/is used in the local
> scope. I don't see any reason to make it harder. There might even be a
> use case for
On 11/28/07, Christian Heimes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What name do you prefer? I'm +1 with Raymond on __root__ but I'm still
> open for better suggestions.
>
I think __root__ is a fine name. Anyway, here some suggestions (in no
particular order):
__top__
__syswide__
__outer__
__t
Fred Drake wrote:
> On Nov 28, 2007, at 9:31 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
>> +1 for either __root_namespace__ or __root__.
>
>
> What is it with nutrient extractors for plants that makes sense here?
Root is a word that takes on a specific meaning depending on the context.
Root as in tooth
"Christian Heimes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
||
| What name do you prefer? I'm +1 with Raymond on __root__ but I'm still
| open for better suggestions.
Ok with me, or __rootnames__, but __root_namespace__ is too long for me ;-)
__
On Nov 28, 2007, at 9:31 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
> +1 for either __root_namespace__ or __root__.
What is it with nutrient extractors for plants that makes sense here?
The goal is to make it blindingly obvious to someone reading code they
didn't write (or even that they did) what's going on.
+
On Nov 28, 2007 12:45 PM, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Nov 28, 2007 12:28 PM, Laurent Gautier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I find __root_namespace__ rather explicit without being unbearably long.
>
> Perhaps the length is even an advantage -- this is not something that
> shoul
Guido van Rossum wrote:
> You can do that but the special entry in globals is still required in
> order to pass it on to all scopes that need it.
Unless you use something other than a plain dict for
module namespaces.
--
Greg
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Steve Holden wrote:
> The namespace should really be called __global__. I doubt this will fly,
> because it's too radical, and unfortunately would undermine the "global"
> keyword
__uberglobal__
--
Greg
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.or
On Wed, 2007-11-28 at 16:20 +0100, Christian Heimes wrote:
> What name do you prefer? I'm +1 with Raymond on __root__ but I'm still
> open for better suggestions.
My suggestions, in descending degrees of seriousness:
__core__
__fixtures__
--
Carsten Haese
http://informixdb.sourceforge.net
__
On Nov 28, 2007 12:28 PM, Laurent Gautier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I find __root_namespace__ rather explicit without being unbearably long.
Perhaps the length is even an advantage -- this is not something that
should be messed with lightly.
> If length is an issue, and __root__ not found expl
I find __root_namespace__ rather explicit without being unbearably long.
If length is an issue, and __root__ not found explicit, I am
suggesting __session__.
L.
2007/11/28, Stephen Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> (The lurker awakes...)
>
>
> >
> > > If not that I suggest something like __inject
(The lurker awakes...)
> > If not that I suggest something like __inject_builtins__. This
> > implies it's a command to eval/exec, and doesn't necessarily reflect
> > your current builtins (which are canonically accessible as an
> > attribute of your frame.)
>
> You're misunderstanding the reason
Christian Heimes schrieb:
> Adam Olsen wrote:
>> -1 on __python__. It seems to be an abbreviation of "python
>> interpreter core" or the like, but on its own it implies nothing about
>> what it means.
>>
>> Contrast that with __root__ where we all know what a root is, even
>> though it doesn't im
Adam Olsen wrote:
> -1 on __python__. It seems to be an abbreviation of "python
> interpreter core" or the like, but on its own it implies nothing about
> what it means.
>
> Contrast that with __root__ where we all know what a root is, even
> though it doesn't imply what kind of root it is or how
On Nov 28, 2007 11:02 AM, Facundo Batista <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2007/11/28, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > ATM I'm torn between __root__ and __python__.
>
> __root__ gives me the idea of the base of a tree, its primary node. +0
Which it is, if you consider nested namespaces as
On Nov 28, 2007 11:50 AM, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Nov 28, 2007 10:46 AM, Adam Olsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Nov 28, 2007 8:20 AM, Christian Heimes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > I'm sending this mail to Python-dev in the hope to reach more developers.
> > >
> >
2007/11/28, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> ATM I'm torn between __root__ and __python__.
__root__ gives me the idea of the base of a tree, its primary node. +0
__python__ gives me the idea of something very deep inside python. +1
Regards,
--
.Facundo
Blog: http://www.taniquetil.
On Nov 28, 2007 10:46 AM, Adam Olsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Nov 28, 2007 8:20 AM, Christian Heimes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I'm sending this mail to Python-dev in the hope to reach more developers.
> >
> > GvR likes to rename the __builtin__ to reduce confusing between
> > __builtin_
On Nov 28, 2007 8:20 AM, Christian Heimes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm sending this mail to Python-dev in the hope to reach more developers.
>
> GvR likes to rename the __builtin__ to reduce confusing between
> __builtin__ and __builtins__. He wanted to start a poll on the new name
> but appare
On Nov 28, 2007 9:39 AM, Georg Brandl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Steve Holden schrieb:
>
> >> What name do you prefer? I'm +1 with Raymond on __root__ but I'm still
> >> open for better suggestions.
> >>
> > The namespace should really be called __global__. I doubt this will fly,
> > because it's
Steve Holden schrieb:
>> What name do you prefer? I'm +1 with Raymond on __root__ but I'm still
>> open for better suggestions.
>>
> The namespace should really be called __global__. I doubt this will fly,
> because it's too radical, and unfortunately would undermine the "global"
> keyword, use
Hello everybody! I really should introduce myself before stating my
opinion. But I'll keep this short and sweet --
I have been "trolling" python-dev for a while just to keep up on its
development and have never posted but I thought I'd share my opinion on
this thread simply because it's a simple
Paul Moore wrote:
> What about __global__? If that's not an option, I'm OK with __root__.
__global__ was also on my list but I've abolished it. It could create
confusing with globals().
Christian
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://
Christian Heimes wrote:
> I'm sending this mail to Python-dev in the hope to reach more developers.
>
> GvR likes to rename the __builtin__ to reduce confusing between
> __builtin__ and __builtins__. He wanted to start a poll on the new name
> but apparently he forgot.
>
>>From http://bugs.python
Paul Moore schrieb:
> On 28/11/2007, Georg Brandl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Christian Heimes schrieb:
>> > What name do you prefer? I'm +1 with Raymond on __root__ but I'm still
>> > open for better suggestions.
>>
>> FWIW, +1 for __root__ too.
>
> What about __global__? If that's not an optio
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Nov 28, 2007, at 10:20 AM, Christian Heimes wrote:
>
> What name do you prefer? I'm +1 with Raymond on __root__ but I'm still
> open for better suggestions.
>
The only other thing I can suggest is __python__ built __root__ works
fine for me too.
On 28/11/2007, Georg Brandl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Christian Heimes schrieb:
> > What name do you prefer? I'm +1 with Raymond on __root__ but I'm still
> > open for better suggestions.
>
> FWIW, +1 for __root__ too.
What about __global__? If that's not an option, I'm OK with __root__.
Paul.
Christian Heimes wrote:
> I'm sending this mail to Python-dev in the hope to reach more developers.
>
> GvR likes to rename the __builtin__ to reduce confusing between
> __builtin__ and __builtins__. He wanted to start a poll on the new name
> but apparently he forgot.
>
>>From http://bugs.pyth
Christian Heimes schrieb:
> I'm sending this mail to Python-dev in the hope to reach more developers.
>
> GvR likes to rename the __builtin__ to reduce confusing between
> __builtin__ and __builtins__. He wanted to start a poll on the new name
> but apparently he forgot.
>
>>From http://bugs.pyth
Christian Heimes wrote:
> I'm sending this mail to Python-dev in the hope to reach more developers.
>
> GvR likes to rename the __builtin__ to reduce confusing between
> __builtin__ and __builtins__. He wanted to start a poll on the new name
> but apparently he forgot.
>
> >From http://bugs.python.
I'm sending this mail to Python-dev in the hope to reach more developers.
GvR likes to rename the __builtin__ to reduce confusing between
__builtin__ and __builtins__. He wanted to start a poll on the new name
but apparently he forgot.
>From http://bugs.python.org/issue1498
---
In http://bugs.pyt
79 matches
Mail list logo
