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
PEP8 consistency is a question to the development team commitment. Nothing
prevents you add pep8 checks to build process, contribute fixes.
This inconsistency has been analyzed for various web frameworks recently:
http://mindref.blogspot.com/2012/10/python-web-pep8-consistency.html
No much in t
