These days, many Python modules make a habit of being selective aboutwhat names they allow to be visible to the outside world; you onlyexpose the official, externally visible interfaces and so on.

This leads me to a thesis: all modules should make visible theirfundamental types, in the same way that the types module makes visible namesfor built-in types. Note that this doesn't reveal any previouslyinaccessible things; outside people could already just use your regularinterfaces to instantiate an instance of the type they

In the Author style of brief notes on things that I ran into elsewhere ( via Author , of course): I actuallyfind the current lack of fighting in Kampfer to be pretty realistic.

All of the Kampfers are theoretically ordinary highschool kids whobasically got drafted against their will. It feels entirely right thatthey are generally unenthusiastic about actually beating each otherup, or even theoretically killing each other, regardless of what theModerators may want them to do, and that they would much rather hang outand talk with each

I wrote about this topic ages ago, but I justhad a very illuminating personal experience with this, and I feel likesharing it.

The one place that I pretty much have to use web-based editing iswriting replies to comments here on WanderingThoughts (unless I turna reply into an entry, which I do from time to time). Today I wasflailing away trying to write such a reply (on yesterday's entry ), and I just couldn't make things cometogether right; I

To condense and stereotype a great deal, there are three general ways ofcreating standards:

• invention , where you come up with something that seems good frommore or less scratch (ie, not feeling obliged to pay any attentionto existing practice, if there is any).

  The risk of this approach is getting your standard adopted in thefield; many invented standards fail dismally because no one isinterested in implementing them.

  The Atom syndication feed format is, I believe, an example of thisway.

• documentation , where