open is not obsolete (was Re: understanding self

[Paul Watson]

"Colin J. Williams" <cjw at sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:5OaHc.45662$JG5.971334 at news20.bellglobal.com...
>
>
> Delaney, Timothy C (Timothy) wrote:
>
> > Jeff Shannon wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Okay, perhaps "legacy" is a better term than "obsolete".  In either
> >>case, it's recommended that it not be used in new code, even if there
> >>is no current plan to remove it.  Not that the specifics of this case
> >>are particularly germane to the point I was making...
> >
> >
> > As mentioned by Tony, this is not the case. From python-dev:
> >
> >
> >>>Then should the following line in the reference be changed?
> >>>
> >>>"The file() constructor is new in Python 2.2. The previous spelling,
> >>>open(), is retained for compatibility, and is an alias for file()."
> >>>
> >>>That *strongly* suggests that the preferred spelling is file(), and
> >>>that open() shouldn't be used for new code.
> >>
> >>Oops, yes.  I didn't write that, and it doesn't convey my feelings
> >>about file() vs. open().  Here's a suggestion for better words:
> >>
> >>"The file class is new in Python 2.2.  It represents the type (class)
> >>of objects returned by the built-in open() function.  Its constructor
> >>is an alias for open(), but for future and backwards compatibility,
> >>open() remains preferred."
> >>
> >>--Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)
> >
> >
> > Tim Delaney
>
> "file" is analogous to a class constructor, while "open" becomes a
> factory function for that class, with the same signature.
>
> This raises the question as to which is the better way of creating an
> instance of a class.
>
> It seems to me that the constructor is, for simple cass, the better way
> to go.  It provides one way and avoids the question of "Should I use A
> or B when there are more than one ways of doing some task.
>
> What is the general view?
>
> Colin W.

It would appear that the "General DBFL" view is to use open().