Joe Marshall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: ... > The problem is that a `name' is a mapping from a symbolic identifier to > an object and that this mapping must either be global (with the > attendant name collision issues) or within a context (with the > attendant question of `in which context').
Why is that a problem? Even for so-called "global" names, Python supports a structured, hierarchical namespace, so there can never be any collision betwen the "globals" of distinct modules (including modules which happen to have the same name but live in distinct packages or subpackages) -- I did mention that names could usefully be displayed in some strcutured form such as apackage.somemodule.thefunction but perhaps I was too tangential about it;-). > Matthias Felleisen once suggested that *every* internal function should > be named. I just said `continuations'. He immediately amended his > statement with `except those'. If I used continuations (I assume you mean in the call/cc sense rather than some in which I'm not familiar?) I might feel the same way, or not, but I don't (alas), so I can't really argue the point either way for lack of real-world experience. But if we can agree to name every function except continuations I'll be content: Python doesn't support continuations, so it's consistent for it to require every function to be named (since in its case "every function" and "every function except continuations" coincide;-). Alex -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
