On May 26, 2013, at 08:34 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>As far as I am aware, there's nothing to clarify: new code should use
>underscores as word separators, code added to an existing module or
>based on existing API should follow the conventions of that module or
>API. This is what PEP 8 already says
> But one thing that often confuses people : function naming. The standard
> library is kind of inconsistent. Some functions are separated by underscores
> and others aren't.
I think there are a number of reasons for this:
* Despite PEP 8's age, significant chunks of the standard library predate
On 26/05/2013 14:02, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
Nick Coghlan writes:
> threading module) and decided the cost/benefit ratio was too low to
> justify ever doing that again.
I think you just failed Econ 101, Nick.
I-teach-that-s**t-for-a-living-ly y'rs,
P.S. Of course we all understood what
Nick Coghlan writes:
> threading module) and decided the cost/benefit ratio was too low to
> justify ever doing that again.
I think you just failed Econ 101, Nick.
I-teach-that-s**t-for-a-living-ly y'rs,
P.S. Of course we all understood what you meant. :-)
On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 7:48 PM, Sébastien Durand wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> "There should be one-- and preferably only one --obvious way to do it."
>
> We all love this mantra.
>
> But one thing that often confuses people : function naming. The standard
> library is kind of inconsistent. Some functions
the list are paying attention to this...
Andriy
> Date: Sun, 26 May 2013 11:48:50 +0200
> From: se8@gmail.com
> To: python-dev@python.org
> Subject: [Python-Dev] PEP 8 and function names
>
> Hi all,
>
> "There should be
Hi all,
"There should be one-- and preferably only one --obvious way to do it."
We all love this mantra.
But one thing that often confuses people : function naming. The standard
library is kind of inconsistent. Some functions are separated by
underscores and others aren't. It's not intuitive and
