Home Original page

private variables/methods

Mel Wilson mwilson at the-wire.com
Tue Oct 14 10:57:31 EDT 2003 
In article <Iseib.204801$hE5.6891483 at news1.tin.it>,
Alex Martelli <aleaxit at yahoo.com> wrote:
>Terry Reedy wrote:
>>> I think that __current_module__ is perhaps a bit too lengthy
>>
>> and redundant ;-)
>
>I disagree.  Lengthy it may be, but we do want a 'reserved module
>name' to use for this purpose.

   To me, the existence of a qualified

    __current_module__.xyz = 3

implies that another local variable can also be called xyz.
So we're forced to code things like

    __current_module__.xyz = 1 - __current_module__.xyz

even with all the beautification brackets '__', this starts
to look cumbersome to me.  I would also prefer (while we're
talking about me) that '__' be a hint that we're dealing
with wizard code -- overloading standard operators inside
class definitions, etc.  I don't think I should have to put
on my masked avenger tights just to get at my own
module-level variables.

   Maybe Python 3 could re-cast the 'global' keyword to take
the place of '__current_module__'.  'module' might be more
meaningful, if it doesn't ultimately take one too many
useful names away from the programmers.

        Regards.        Mel.
More information about the Python-list mailing list