On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 09:55:39 +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
> Steven D'Aprano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> having the ability to create a protocol is a Very Good Thing, and
>> double leading and trailing underscore names are the accepted Python
>> style for such special methods.
>
> Is it? There a
Ben Finney wrote:
> The double-underscore convention seems more for attributes *that are
> interpreted specially*, e.g. by syntax operators or other core
> language features.
I would qualify that by adding that it's for attributes that are treated
specially _and when you don't want to overload o
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> Double-underscore names and methods are special to Python. Developers are
> prohibited from creating their own (although the language doesn't enforce
> that prohibition). From PEP 0008, written by Guido himself:
>
> __double_leading_and_trailing_underscore__: "magi
Steven D'Aprano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> having the ability to create a protocol is a Very Good Thing, and
> double leading and trailing underscore names are the accepted Python
> style for such special methods.
Is it? There are many protocols that use plain names. Even the
built-in types su
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> So what do folks think? I believe the protocol idiom ("look for a method
> called __parrot__ and then do something with it") is too useful and
> powerful to be ignored, but then if __parrot__ is reserved by Python,
> what to do?
The Python core claims all rights for __m
