2001 Enchancement Wishlist

[Thomas Wouters]

On Thu, Jan 04, 2001 at 06:37:41PM +0100, Alex Martelli wrote:
> "Thomas Wouters" <thomas at xs4all.net> writes:

> A module object, in contrast, has no such flexibility.  It can of
> course have *attributes*, which, as they can be anything (in particular,
> they can be class-instances), are as flexible as can be -- but it
> cannot present any 'face' to client-code, except its own.

Nor is it intended to. Nor should you ever *want* to. *That* is why I don't
understand your problem with me saying that it's perfectly possible to use
a module namespace to provide singletons. I don't give a gerbil's tush
about semantics myself. I was merely making clear what /F suggested: use a
module namespace to expose singletons -- and I still don't understand what
your problem is with that.

The rest of the disagreement is based solely on a different view of Python
and all its aspects. I won't dispute it, mostly because I don't feel like
trying to understand it right now, sorry :) My view of Python is very
simple, it works for me, and I have wish nor time to broaden it now for sake
of aesthetic semantics :)

Simplicity-is-Python's-main-attraction-ly y'rs,
-- 
Thomas Wouters <thomas at xs4all.net>

Hi! I'm a .signature virus! copy me into your .signature file to help me spread!