Path: csiph.com!usenet.pasdenom.info!gegeweb.org!de-l.enfer-du-nord.net!feeder1.enfer-du-nord.net!feeds.phibee-telecom.net!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed3.news.xs4all.nl!xs4all!post.news.xs4all.nl!not-for-mail
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAPTjJmp9XU00TM=RTNN=+=fq5jv7W3i4-XuOqVcAYNvZP7AVGg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <kp5q5o$fj1$1@ger.gmane.org> <mailman.3096.1371040064.3114.python-list@python.org> <kpa0ae$b4t$1@reader1.panix.com> <CAMjeLr_ozpfk3TxaEOaenoES5jUpYnZDaYWcNbX1FctO8OLuDw@mail.gmail.com> <CAPTjJmrwx6BV=Crm9bYeayRH83OGJ48w_fy_MpB-_wHpgfimpA@mail.gmail.com> <CAMjeLr9Qm5uA8AA5G3rm+ikN+f3JoVjS_j9_nhuU7m3s+WbydQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAPTjJmp9XU00TM=RTNN=+=fq5jv7W3i4-XuOqVcAYNvZP7AVGg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 17:26:43 -0700
Subject: Re: "Don't rebind built-in names*" - it confuses readers
From: Mark Janssen <dreamingforward@gmail.com>
To: Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Cc: python-list@python.org
Precedence: list
Newsgroups: comp.lang.python
Message-ID: <mailman.3147.1371083212.3114.python-list@python.org>
Lines: 46
NNTP-Posting-Host: 2001:888:2000:d::a6
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.python:47870

> The builtins don't need to be imported, but they're identifiers like
> anything else. They're a namespace that gets searched after
> module-globals.

Yes, I understand, though for clarity and separability, it seems that
having them in a namespace that gets explicitly pulled into the global
space is less messy, despite the extra step (the default python
distribution could include a STARTUP file that imports the builtin
types).  But I must withhold my personal philosophy lest it get too
complicated.

>> And int, list, tuple, dict and such always seemed
>> like keywords to my CS self because they were included in Python's
>> type system (like "int" would be in C).
>
> Yep, but in Python, types/classes are themselves objects, so you can
> pass them around like anything else. This also downgrades them from
> "language keyword" to "always-available name", which in effect
> upgrades your _own_ classes to the same level.

Yes, and here is where I've been trying to argue that Python's object
model isn't right.  But I must abstain from commenting further.

>> They are all one-step removed from keywords.   And yet, since they are
>> not in a separate namespace, they should not be used as variable
>> names.  Perhaps since they are very different from one another, they
>> should be put in separate namespaces off of a global, root
>> namespace...  (math, string, etc.)
>
> There's no point forcing them to be looked up in a two-step process.
> If you want that, you can simply reference them as
> __builtins__.whatever, but you can instead just reference them as the
> unadorned name whatever. They contribute heavily to the simplicity and
> readability of Python code - imagine if every call to len() had to be
> qualified.

Well I would anticipate a keyword ("load"?) so one could load a
particular namespace into the global scope.  The issue I guess is when
should modules be "on file" vs. "in memory" like the builtins?  The
reason this is coming up, is because I would like to imagine a data
ecosystem, where I can import a set of objects from the network as if
they are local right into my interpreter environment.

-- 
MarkJ
Tacoma, Washington