Package name with '.' in them: Python Bug ?

[Hung Jung Lu]

"Terry Reedy" <tjreedy at udel.edu> wrote in message news:<mailman.179.1079764920.742.python-list at python.org>...
> 
> In Python, that is a meaningless term to me.
> ... 
> Python is neither C++ nor Java.  It's data model is quite different.
> Imported jargon is meaningless to those not familiear with is.  Adding the
> word 'static' to 'class attribute' or 'class variable' adds nothing since
> there is no differentiation from a hypothetical 'non-static' class
> attribute.
> 
---------------
"John Roth" <newsgroups at jhrothjr.com> wrote in message news:<105oe5k5ovugi5e at news.supernews.com>...
> 
> So what? This is Python, not C++, Java or any other language.
> ... 
> Static generally means "something that does not change." The fact
> that C++ in particular abuses the word has no relevance.
---------------

No relevance, huh?

(a) What is in the Python Programming FAQ, then?

http://www.python.org/doc/faq/programming.html#how-do-i-create-static-class-data-and-static-class-methods

Are you saying that this is a C++ Programming FAQ?

(b) Search in Python mailing list for keywords "static variable"
(quoted as single keyword) and "meaningless". There are exactly two
entries, by authors John Roth and Terry Reedy. The fact is,
historically speaking, so far there have been only two person in the
Python community that have claimed "static variables" are meaningless
in Python. Search again with "class static" as single (quoted)
keyword, and you see plenty of people in the Python community talking
about class-static issues, and none of them ever said that it is
meaningless.

So, how come all other people can discuss about class-static issues
without problem, and only you two have to jump out with semantic
issues and say it is meaningless?

I don't understand. What is so special about you two? Are you guys the
Real Academia de la Lengua Pythonica or something like that? :)

Hung Jung