From: Guy K. K. <g....@ma...> - 2010-10-08 20:57:31
|
On Sat, 09 Oct 2010 07:05:19 Bruce Sherwood wrote: > I pointed out that while we can arrange things in such a way as to > look like this, the actual implementation has to be "the other way > round": for backward compatibility the visual folder has to remain > essentially unchanged, and a second folder (maybe named "vpython") > would have submodules that would import from the visual folder. I think there's an error in the logic here. The implementation should be driven in a way that it is implemented cleanly first off the bat. Then you can put all kinds of imports into a "comfortability" module "visual". If done the other way around, the runtime will be buggered with all the unused imports, and it is only the presentation that makes it look more pythonesque. So my suggestion goes along the line to provide two independent name spaces: "vpython" (or "libvisual" or whatever suggestions Craig has made) for the clean implementation, and a separate one "visual" that contains the comfortability imports from the clean implementation. Guy -- Guy K. Kloss Institute of Information and Mathematical Sciences Te Kura Pūtaiao o Mōhiohio me Pāngarau Massey University, Albany (North Shore City, Auckland) 473 State Highway 17, Gate 1, Mailroom, Quad B Building voice: +64 9 414-0800 ext. 9266 fax: +64 9 441-8181 G....@ma... http://www.massey.ac.nz/~gkloss |