Path: csiph.com!usenet.pasdenom.info!dedibox.gegeweb.org!gegeweb.eu!nntpfeed.proxad.net!proxad.net!feeder1-1.proxad.net!ecngs!feeder2.ecngs.de!newsfeed.freenet.ag!news2.euro.net!newsgate.cistron.nl!newsgate.news.xs4all.nl!post.news.xs4all.nl!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.lang.python
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2012 10:41:10 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <mailman.237.1353695779.29569.python-list@python.org>
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=80.109.122.186; posting-account=oknH1QoAAABqzbD_5ziFTvLQsqNk2LbU
References: <d2e59ddf-d44c-44d9-91c5-539b03cfcfcb@googlegroups.com> <CAPM-O+znTEt0eTz=xvaGi6MOLhJaGM_uV-c904c+fFTL6ejD3A@mail.gmail.com> <mailman.237.1353695779.29569.python-list@python.org>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: Is it bad style to override the built-in function `type`?
From: Michael Herrmann <michael.herrmann@getautoma.com>
To: comp.lang.python@googlegroups.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: python-list@python.org
Precedence: list
Message-ID: <mailman.238.1353696074.29569.python-list@python.org>
Lines: 80
NNTP-Posting-Host: 2001:888:2000:d::a6
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.python:33860

Thank you for your feedback. I sent the following reply to Joel but it didn=
't make it through to the mailing list:=20

Hi Joel,

thanks for your reply. I can see why you think it's a bad idea. The reason =
why we want to call it `type` is that this is precisely the word that is mo=
st commonly used in our context, GUI automation. There are alternative name=
s (see http://bit.ly/10aOy4H for a huge list) , but leaving aside the fact =
that Python has an overwriteable meaning for `type`, none fits quite as wel=
l. One of the main goals of our tool/API is to be as close to everyday Engl=
ish as possible, and thus hopefully to be intuitive also for novice users. =
For this reason it is very tempting for us to use `type`. Several people in=
 the original thread http://bit.ly/10aOy4H have suggested `type` because it=
 best fits our problem domain, and have said that they don't mind it overri=
ding a built-in function.

I know it's a common beginner's mistake to incautiously override built-in f=
unctions. However, we put in a lot of research and have come to the conclus=
ion that, if Python had not already defined it, `type` would be the best na=
me. We are now trying to evaluate how bad the disadvantages you mention are=
 in comparison to the advantage to having a name that is more intuitive to =
use in the problem domain.

Can you somehow relate to my explanations, or are your experiences with ove=
rwriting built-in variables so bad that you would advise to never ever do i=
t?

Thanks!
Michael

On Friday, November 23, 2012 7:36:20 PM UTC+1, Terry Reedy wrote:
> On 11/23/2012 11:22 AM, Joel Goldstick wrote:
>=20
> >
>=20
> >
>=20
> >
>=20
> > On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 11:12 AM, Michael Herrmann
>=20
> > <Michael Herrmann>
>=20
> > wrote:
>=20
> >
>=20
> >     Hi,
>=20
> >
>=20
> >     do you think it's bad style to override the built-in function
>=20
> >     `type`? I'm co-developing a GUI automation library called Automa
>=20
> >     (http://www.getautoma.com) and 'type' would be a very fitting name
>=20
> >     for a function that generates artificial key strokes.
>=20
> >
>=20
> > Personally, I think this is a horrible idea.  On this list and the tuto=
r
>=20
> > list, people often use variable names that are already defined in the
>=20
> > language.  It leads to non obvious errors -- especially when revisting
>=20
> > old code.  Why not call the thing 'key_stroke'?
>=20
>=20
>=20
> I agree.
>=20
>=20
>=20
> --=20
>=20
> Terry Jan Reedy