Bruno Desthuilliers wrote: > Antoon Pardon wrote: > > On 2006-07-21, fuzzylollipop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >>danielx wrote: > >> > (snip) > >> > >> > >>if you prefix with a single underscore, that tells the user, DON'T MESS > >>WITH ME FROM OUTSIDE! I AM AN IMPLEMENTATION DETAIL! > > > > > > Personnaly I don't like this convention. > > To bad for you. > > > It isn't clear enough. > > Oh yes ? > > > Suppose I am writing my own module, I use an underscore, to > > mark variables which are an implementation detail for my > > module. > > > > Now I need to import an other module in my module and need access > > to an implementation variable from that module. > > > > So now I have > > variables with an underscore which have two different meanings: > > > > 1) This is an implemantation detail of this module, It is the > > users of my module who have to be extra carefull using it. > > > > 2) This is an implemantation detail of the other module, > > I should be extra carefull using it. > > Either you imported with the "from othermodule import *" form (which you > shouldn't do), and you *don't* have the implementation of othermodule, > or your used the "import othermodule" form, in which case it's pretty > obvious which names belongs to othermodule. > > Have any other, possibly valid, reason ? > > > And I find variable starting or ending with an underscore ugly. :-) > > Too bad for you. Choose another language then... PHP, Perl, Ruby ?-) >
"Too bad for you": While you have a valid point that this contention is really just arbitrary (just like all conventions), could we be a little gentler? Personally, I don't think it looks very good either, but you just have to deal with it if you're going to use the language properly. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
