[Python-Dev] [poll] New name for builtins (original) (raw)

Adam Olsen rhamph at gmail.com
Wed Nov 28 20:11:10 CET 2007

On Nov 28, 2007 11:50 AM, Guido van Rossum <guido at python.org> wrote:

On Nov 28, 2007 10:46 AM, Adam Olsen <rhamph at gmail.com> wrote: > On Nov 28, 2007 8:20 AM, Christian Heimes <lists at cheimes.de> wrote: > > I'm sending this mail to Python-dev in the hope to reach more developers. > > > > GvR likes to rename the builtin to reduce confusing between > > builtin and builtins. He wanted to start a poll on the new name > > but apparently he forgot. > > In a recent thread on python-ideas[1] it was suggested that builtins > be added as an argument to eval and exec. I'd prefer to do that and > eliminate the name altogether. > [1] http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-ideas/2007-November/001250.html

You can do that but the special entry in globals is still required in order to pass it on to all scopes that need it. > If not that I suggest something like injectbuiltins. This > implies it's a command to eval/exec, and doesn't necessarily reflect > your current builtins (which are canonically accessible as an > attribute of your frame.) You're misunderstanding the reason why builtins exists at all. It is used everywhere as the root namespace, not just as a special case to inject different builtins.

Ahh, so only replacing builtins is unsupported (an implementation detail, as it may be cached), not all use of it? It is confusing that something normally unsupported becomes required for eval/exec.

ATM I'm torn between root and python.

-1 on python. It seems to be an abbreviation of "python interpreter core" or the like, but on its own it implies nothing about what it means.

Contrast that with root where we all know what a root is, even though it doesn't imply what kind of root it is or how its used.

root_globals would be another option, showing clearly how it relates to our existing use of the "globals" term.

-- Adam Olsen, aka Rhamphoryncus

More information about the Python-Dev mailing list