Maintainability (was Re: Stackless & String-processing)
Greg Ewing
greg.ewing at compaq.com
Thu Jul 22 18:19:05 EDT 1999
More information about the Python-list mailing list
Thu Jul 22 18:19:05 EDT 1999
- Previous message (by thread): Maintainability (was Re: Stackless & String-processing)
- Next message (by thread): Maintainability (was Re: Stackless & String-processing)
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Skip Montanaro wrote: > > Some modules > in the standard distribution were designed specifically to support this > (types and Tkinter come to mind). In the case of Types, it could easily have been designed differently. Writing Types.List would not be much harder than typing Listtype and would be easier to read as well. As for Tkinter, I've gotten into the habit of always writing Tkinter.Button, etc. and I think the qualification is a good idea. It means, for example, I can have a module called Fancy which implements a custom button subclass and call it Fancy.Button. I like that better than having to call the class Fancybutton or something. So I wouldn't mind much if the * form of import went away, either. You can easily write a function which does the same thing if you really, really want it. Greg
- Previous message (by thread): Maintainability (was Re: Stackless & String-processing)
- Next message (by thread): Maintainability (was Re: Stackless & String-processing)
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the Python-list mailing list