Alex Martelli wrote: > > I also share your preference for a single namespace for callable and > non-callable values, as in Python (and Scheme, Lisp, C++, ...), rather > than disjoint namespaces as in Ruby (and Smalltalk), but I do not see it > as a question of rigor and consistency at all -- e.g., I do not perceive > Smalltalk as less rigorous or consistent than C++, on the contrary. > > So, I agree with your choice, and I think I understand your motivations, > but I do not entirely share your motivations, personally speaking. >
Thanks Alex for your excellent explanations. I have the Python Cookbook 2nd Ed., and I highly appreciate your knowledge and experience. I guess my choice of words "rigor and consistency" was not very good. In this context "rigor" meant enforcing rules (for example having to use parentheses to call a method) to prevent ambiguity rather than depending on heuristics. Also "consistency" meant doing things as uniformly as possible (for example always call a method with the same syntax, whether the variable referencing it is the original name or an alias). -- Francois -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
