George Sakkis wrote: > I prefer the the simple global statements if they aren't > that many, otherwise the assignment of the module to self is also fine.
I replied to this article, and then canceled the reply (but that never works), thinking you were criticizing the general concept of "module as a singleton" and not just my approach. I should learn to read. I apologize for the misunderstanding. I do agree my implementation is a little hacky, although IMHO it feels to fit in with the way classes work better, which appeals to me but probably not most people :). For one thing, the methods have the explicit self argument, like regular classes. For another, it uses a decorator to affect the binding of the modules. In regular classes, functions are instance methods by default, and become class methods or static methods with a decorator. I like to think of modules as having a special metaclass that treats functions as static methods by default, and uses a decorator to get an instance method. (Even though that isn't remotely how it works, it fits how it would work if you were implementing modules based on classes.) Having said that, I've no problem with Kamilche's approach. The real evil in my mind is using lots of global statements, and anything you can do to stay away from that is a good thing. Carl Banks -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
