[Python-ideas] PEP 3155 - Qualified name for classes and functions

[Jim Jewett]

On 11/9/11, Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 8:04 AM, Barry Warsaw <barry at python.org> wrote:
>> Isn't that a problem with the basic terminology then?  If you don't know
>> what a "qualified name" is you probably won't know what a "qname" is,
>> and you definitely won't make that connection.  I think that's more
>> reason to find the right terminology and spell it out.

I know that a "qualified name" is a special kind of name, and that if
I have to worry about it, then I should expect subtle bugs with either
false matches, false mismatches, or both.

I cannot imagine a more specific definition that is both true and
sufficiently simple that I don't have to look it up.

But frankly, that seems to be true of the proposed names as well
(usually but not always equal to __name__, often but not always
sufficient to figure out where the object was defined, etc).

The only cognitive grief is about figuring out when I *do* need to use
a qname instead of a regular name; I don't see a rule of thumb like
"Handles user-generated strings" or "Multiple namespaces are being
used".

> There may not *be* 'right terminology' for what a qname is going to
> be, since we're basically inventing the concept to cover some gaps in
> the meaning of __name__.

And so I suspect there isn't a simple term.  (There might be several
simple terms that each describe some but not all of the use cases.)

> I'm setting the mnemonic bar at "once you
> know what a Python qname is, is the name suggestive enough to let you
> remember it?", not at the much higher "if you encounter the Python
> qname term without knowing what it means, are you going to be able to
> guess correctly without looking it up?".

I would say that all of __qname__, __q_name__, __qualname__,
__qualifiedname__, etc meet that bar, as do __extendedname__ or
__impl_name__.

> I'm also considering the
> reverse problem of  "if you encounter the Python qname term without
> knowing what it means, are you going to *think* you know what it means
> without looking it up and be incorrect?".

I wouldn't, but I'm probably a bad judge on that.

-jJ