From: Elias Athanasopoulos <elathan@...>
Date: 2004-07-16T02:09:55+09:00
Subject: Re: 'Initializing' modules

Hello!

On Thu, Jul 15, 2004 at 08:37:17PM +0900, Robert Klemme wrote:
> 
> "Elias Athanasopoulos" <elathan@phys.uoa.gr> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> news:20040714024430.GA810@velka.phys.uoa.gr...
> > Hello!
> >
> > On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 09:02:21PM +0900, George Moschovitis wrote:
> > > Another surpising thing:
> > >
> > > include A, B seems to include the Modules in the reverse order
> > > include A; include B works as expected.
> >
> > Since nobody replied and I think it's an interesting question,
> > does anyone know why this happens?
> 
> I guess the reason is that in the first case [A,B] is inserted into the
> sequence of ancestors as is, while in the second case first A is inserted
> and then B, which effectively yields [derived, B, A, base, ...] as
> ancestors.

You maybe right. But, IMHO, this is a real coding style 
enforcement. I mean, it's difficult to distinguish that
'import A, B' is different than 'import A; import B'.

It's a kind of surprising. :-)

I am willing to help to fix it *if* there is not a 
special reason to Matz' brain about this behaviour.

Regards,
-- 
University of Athens			I bet the human brain 
Physics Department				is a kludge --Marvin Minsky