Guido van Rossum wrote:
> I note that at least for built-in types there will be the naming
> convention that concrete implementation classes are all lowercase,
> like int, float, list, namedtuple, defaultdict, and so on, while the
> ABCs all have a Capitalized[Words] name: Hashable, Number, Real,
>
On Jan 27, 2008 12:29 AM, Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This will be a bikeshed argument until Guido speaks out his
> preference/decision I guess.
>
> But isn't it a more common solution to name the base class just Number and
> derive from it by means of using Base.Numb
-On [20080127 03:25], Terry Reedy ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>I *think* I would prefer to any of these either
>ANumber or
>aNumber,
>which one can read as either an abbreviation of Abstract Number or simply a
>contraction of 'a Number' (a Real, an Integral, etc) taken to mean the
>abstraction.
T
"Nick Coghlan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
| Raymond Hettinger wrote:
| > A prefix would be better.
|
| I initially thought that, but found the suffix to be the least annoying
| of the ideas I had for denoting abstract base classes. To try and give
|| INumber
|| AB
Raymond Hettinger wrote:
>> but if Guido likes the idea of a standard naming convention (such as
>> the ABC suffix) for classes that use the ABCMeta metaclass, I'd
>> certainly be happy to go through and update the affected classes and
>> the code which refers to them.
>
> A prefix would be bet
> but if Guido
> likes the idea of a standard naming convention (such as the ABC suffix)
> for classes that use the ABCMeta metaclass, I'd certainly be happy to go
> through and update the affected classes and the code which refers to them.
A prefix would be better.
Raymond
__
Jeffrey Yasskin wrote:
> That's a good point. Someone already convinced me to name the test for
> numbers.py, test_abstract_numbers.py, so renaming the module makes
> sense too, although I agree that collections, which contains some
> concrete classes, should keep its current name. If others agree,
On Jan 25, 2008 9:31 PM, Nick Coghlan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Raymond Hettinger wrote:
> >> If you want ABCs to be more easily recognizable
> >> as such, perhaps we could use a naming convention,
> >
> > Essentially, that's all I was asking for. It doesn't
> > really matter to me whether numb
Raymond Hettinger wrote:
>> If you want ABCs to be more easily recognizable
>> as such, perhaps we could use a naming convention,
>
> Essentially, that's all I was asking for. It doesn't
> really matter to me whether numbers.py gets called
> abc_numbers or abc.numbers. Either one would be an
>
Raymond Hettinger wrote:
>> If you want ABCs to be more easily recognizable
>> as such, perhaps we could use a naming convention,
>
> Essentially, that's all I was asking for. It doesn't
> really matter to me whether numbers.py gets called
> abc_numbers or abc.numbers. Either one would be an
>
> If you want ABCs to be more easily recognizable
> as such, perhaps we could use a naming convention,
Essentially, that's all I was asking for. It doesn't
really matter to me whether numbers.py gets called
abc_numbers or abc.numbers. Either one would be an
improvement.
Raymond
__
On Jan 25, 2008 3:15 PM, Raymond Hettinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> All of the abstract base classes should be collected in one place. I propose
> that the modules be collected into a package so that we can write:
>
>import abc.numbers
>import abc.collections
> . . .
>
> Besides c
12 matches
Mail list logo
