On Jan 14, 2:58 pm, Evan Driscoll <edrisc...@wisc.edu> wrote: > On 01/14/2012 02:11 PM, Devin Jeanpierre wrote:
> It also has some problems. For instance, if an object has a member which > is a type that implements __call__ but is also useful to access "on its > own", is that a field or a function? Can you site a real world example that would prove your point? > Personally, I'd suggest the thing to "fix" to solve your confusion would > be how things like your code completion and dir() display the results, I must admit this would be the low cost solution, although, i have always been irked by the obfuscation of programming language syntax. I don't need the manual anymore. I just need some introspection tools. HOWEVER, even the best introspection tools in the world cannot make up for obfuscation. Consider the case of the obfuscation of sex by certain "gender neutral" names. males and females frequent usenet and forums around the net, and in most cases we know that a "Tom", "Dick", and "Harry" are going be males, and that "June", "April", and "May" are going to be females. But what about "August", "Jamie", "Payton", or "Parker"? ...and don't forget about that boy named Sue! In face to face communication we will know (most times) who is male, who is female, and who is other. But when all we have to go by is a simple name, well, that name MUST be descriptive. It must carry some hint as to sex. "Hello Mr, urrr Mrs., urrr Payton" EGG ON FACE! Same in programming. We need syntactical clues. When we are removed from the visual, and have no proper syntactic clues, we are then forced to guess! -- and nobody wants to be accused of being the opposite sex! -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
