Callable modules?

[Max M]

Alex Martelli wrote:


> A respectable opinion.  Mine is just the reverse -- were it not
> for backwards compatibility, I wouldn't mind losing __call__ in
> instances.  A bound method can do it, and we could have a
> _convention_ about how a "primary" method (if any) should be
> named, just as we have for the 'self' argument.  It's all
> theoretical anyway, __call__'s never going to go away in fact.


I believe you mean something like:

class WithPrimary:

     def WithPrimary_primary(self):
         # primary method due to naming conventions
         pass

Why is this better than having an explicit __call__ method? Is it 
because of a dislike of the "__*__" methods in general?

I must admit that I rarely use the __call__ method, but I have found it 
very convenient in some cases.

The funny thing though is that I have found it most usefull when I need 
to set up a function in somehing like map(), sort(), filter() etc. where 
I need additional data passed to the visitor function, which these 
functions does not allow.

So a "shortcomming" in Python is worked around by a strength, if you can 
say it like that.


regards Max M