[Python-3000] please keep open() as a builtin, and general concerns about Py3k complexity (original) (raw)

Steve Howell showell30 at yahoo.com
Wed May 23 05:25:45 CEST 2007

Hi, this is my first post to the list. My name is Steve Howell, and I currently work on a system, largely written in Python, that processes a billion transactions per year. On the opposite side of the sprectrum, I've also had experience in classrooms using Python as a teaching tool.

In the system I've worked on for the last three years, we have at least 200 calls to the builtin open() method. Ironically, to compile that stat, I wrote a tiny Python program that used open() as a builtin.

So I'm -201 on the proposal to eliminate it as a builtin. I understand the original justification for the proposal--that it helps you identify modules that do I/O--but I don't find it difficult in practice to find modules that use I/O, and I definitely work with a large enough code base where that comes up.

Although the open() debate seems to have died out, I'd like to reply to Raymond Hettinger's observation that "Taking a more global viewpoint, I'm experiencing a little FUD about Py3k." I think he's on to something. I've been following the Py3k discussions for several months, and I find myself frequently feeling very bewildered about the new features being proposed, even though I'm hardly a newbie.

FWIW one of my favorite accepted PEPs is PEP 3111, "Simple input built-in in Python 3000." BTW it's the only 3000 series PEP with the word "simple" in the title. I realize looking at PEPs and mailing list archives can skew an outsider's view of how well Py3K simplifies the language, since simple ideas often don't require PEPs, and complex ideas often lead to lengthier debates than simple ones, but I'm not feeling the simplicity.

Don't pick lemons. See all the new 2007 cars at Yahoo! Autos. http://autos.yahoo.com/new_cars.html

More information about the Python-3000 mailing list