Martin v. Löwis wrote:
> Thomas Heller wrote:
>> Personally, I *like* the ctypes name. But I'm open for suggestions,
>> and it might have intersting consequences if the Python core package
>> would be renamed to something else.
>>
>> Any suggestions?
>
> Well, my only concern was py_object. I won
Thomas Heller wrote:
> Personally, I *like* the ctypes name. But I'm open for suggestions,
> and it might have intersting consequences if the Python core package
> would be renamed to something else.
>
> Any suggestions?
Well, my only concern was py_object. I wondered whether the py_
prefix is r
I suggest to ignore this thread. The OP seems clueless and the names
are fine. Don't waste your time.
On 4/21/06, Thomas Heller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Martin v. Löwis wrote:
> > Dennis Heuer wrote:
> >> Module names
> >> like hashlib are not python-like too (too c/lowlevel-like).
> >
> > I a
Martin v. Löwis wrote:
> Dennis Heuer wrote:
>> Module names
>> like hashlib are not python-like too (too c/lowlevel-like).
>
> I agree with Greg: hashlib is a Pythonic name for a module,
> just like httplib, mhlib, xmlrpclib, cookielib, contextlib,
> difflib, ...
>
> OTOH, it might be indeed tha
Dennis Heuer wrote:
> Module names
> like hashlib are not python-like too (too c/lowlevel-like).
I agree with Greg: hashlib is a Pythonic name for a module,
just like httplib, mhlib, xmlrpclib, cookielib, contextlib,
difflib, ...
OTOH, it might be indeed that the ctypes name need to be
aligned wi
> Module names like hashlib are not python-like too (too c/lowlevel-like).
what is python-like?
hashlib was chosen because it is a library of hash functions and
hash() is already taken as a builtin function (otherwise i'd leave off
the lib).
-g
___
Pyt
