Path: csiph.com!x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net!usenet.pasdenom.info!goblin3!goblin2!goblin.stu.neva.ru!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed5.news.xs4all.nl!xs4all!post.news.xs4all.nl!not-for-mail Return-Path: X-Original-To: python-list@python.org Delivered-To: python-list@mail.python.org X-Spam-Status: OK 0.000 X-Spam-Evidence: '*H*': 1.00; '*S*': 0.00; '(except': 0.05; 'attributes': 0.05; 'warnings': 0.05; 'builtins': 0.07; 'function,': 0.07; 'names.': 0.07; 'raised': 0.07; 'received:verizon.net': 0.07; 'subject:when': 0.07; 'terry': 0.07; 'builtin': 0.09; 'received:80.91': 0.09; 'received:80.91.229': 0.09; 'received:80.91.229.12': 0.09; 'received:gmane.org': 0.09; 'received:list': 0.09; 'received:lo.gmane.org': 0.09; "'open": 0.16; 'otoh,': 0.16; 'reedy': 0.16; 'subject:builtin': 0.16; 'wrote:': 0.16; 'jan': 0.19; 'seems': 0.20; 'suggest': 0.20; 'header:In-Reply-To:1': 0.22; "shouldn't": 0.23; 'asked': 0.23; 'pm,': 0.24; 'variable': 0.24; 'posted': 0.26; 'import': 0.28; 'zero.': 0.30; 'modules': 0.31; 'subject:?': 0.31; 'list': 0.32; "isn't": 0.33; 'there': 0.33; 'to:addr:python-list': 0.33; 'someone': 0.34; 'header:User-Agent:1': 0.34; 'all.': 0.34; 'pretty': 0.35; 'header:X-Complaints-To:1': 0.35; 'anything': 0.36; 'question': 0.36; 'issue': 0.36; 'response': 0.37; 'using': 0.37; 'run': 0.37; 'but': 0.37; 'open': 0.37; 'think': 0.38; 'received:org': 0.38; 'some': 0.38; 'should': 0.38; 'subject:: ': 0.39; 'header:Mime-Version:1': 0.39; 'define': 0.39; 'to:addr:python.org': 0.39; 'where': 0.40; 'special': 0.67; 'specific,': 0.84 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: python-list@python.org From: Terry Reedy Subject: Re: Why no warnings when re-assigning builtin names? Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2011 19:29:25 -0400 References: <4e49c89a$0$30001$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> <4e49fcd7$0$29974$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: pool-74-109-121-73.phlapa.fios.verizon.net User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:6.0) Gecko/20110812 Thunderbird/6.0 In-Reply-To: X-BeenThere: python-list@python.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: General discussion list for the Python programming language List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Newsgroups: comp.lang.python Message-ID: Lines: 24 NNTP-Posting-Host: 2001:888:2000:d::a6 X-Trace: 1313537402 news.xs4all.nl 23861 [2001:888:2000:d::a6]:34862 X-Complaints-To: abuse@xs4all.nl Xref: x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net comp.lang.python:11621 On 8/16/2011 1:15 PM, Gerrat Rickert wrote: > I think that best practices would suggest that one shouldn't use > variable > names that shadow builtins (except in specific, special circumstances), > so I don't really think this would be an annoyance at all. The number > of > *unwanted* warnings they'd get would be pretty close to zero. OTOH, in > response to a question I asked on StackOverflow, someone posted a large > list of times where this isn't followed in the std lib, so there seems > to be a precedent for just using the builtin names for anything > one feels like at the time. If you run across that again and email me the link, I will take a look and see if I think the issue should be raised on pydev. Of course, some modules *intentionally* define an open function, intended to be accessed as 'mod.open' and not as 'from mod import *; open'. Also, class/instance attributes can also reuse builtin names. But 'open = ' would be bad. -- Terry Jan Reedy