Steve Holden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Right. While we're at it, why don't we make strings callable. Calling
> a string could call the function whose name (in some namespace or
> other) was in the string.
Making a string subclass callable works fine:
>>> class f(str):
... def __call__(self): print len(self)
...
>>> z=f('foo')
>>> z
'foo'
>>> z()
3
>>>
> Why should a module be callable? What's the advantage?
I've wanted to be able to say
import frotz
x = frotz(23)
instead of having to say "from frotz import frotz" or "x = frotz.frotz(23)".
That kind of cruft pervades code that uses the standard library and
callable modules could clean a lot of it up. No more random.random,
sha.new, etc. Just call the module to make an instance of the class
it defines.
> Should we be able to add two modules together, yielding a module
> that contains all the code of both modules? What happens if I
> multiply a module by two - presumably the result should be the same
> as adding a module to itself? Perhaps we should be able to divide a
> module by a function?
There should be no built-in definitions of those operations but
if you're a duck-typing believer, it's clear what __add__ etc. should do.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
