[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- Subject: Re: How about removing the underscores from metatables?
- From: KHMan <keinhong@...>
- Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2011 22:41:18 +0800
On 1/27/2011 10:24 PM, Mateusz Czaplinski wrote:
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 11:20 AM, steve donovan wrote:
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 12:13 PM, Axel Kittenberger wrote:
any content of metatables? My guess that newbies are so freightened
from metas is just exactly the __syntax.
Hm, I don't think newbies should worry themselves about metatables.
They are a subtle concept and the underscores are the least part.
Personally, I do agree with that view.
The anxiety is likely because the first document newbies get hold
of is the reference manual in the sources. Trouble is, these
things become really clear when there are a lot of samples or
recipes to examine. The ref man does not really help with that;
the PIL book is the one to read. Or the wiki. Same with weak tables...
I'd also like to note, that AFAI remember, Python does also give some
sematic meaning to a double-underscore prefix (I think that's for
private fields in a class, and their names are internally suffixed
with something special in such a case). So there are at least two
members in this club.
But they are just conventions right? I don't think that's really
an issue. Looking at code samples is the way to banish all those
anxieties. Remember how we start to learn the Win32 API? We run a
program to create a basic window and we have no idea what all
those parameters really do, but eventually we muddle along fine
helped by a ton of code snippets...
Kein-Hong Man (esq.)
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia