On 2006-07-21, Bruno Desthuilliers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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.
I'll survive. >> 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. As far as I understand the _name convention is often defended with the argument that it stands out. Now if you have to go and look at the import statements to make a disticntion, then it seems that the way _names standout isn't that usefull. >> And I find variable starting or ending with an underscore ugly. :-) > > Too bad for you. Choose another language then... PHP, Perl, Ruby ?-) Not a very strong argument. Whether or not someone has a legitimat point of criticism against Python or some of the conventions used. You can always reply: Too bad, better choose another language then. -- Antoon Pardon -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
