On Mar 6, 6:07 am, "Chris Mellon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Because you're advocating single class per file.
What I actually said was "Smallest practical functional block." I never said one class per file, in fact I generally have more than one class per file. Nonetheless I frequently have a class which has the same name as the file it's contained in, which is where I start having trouble. > What you said was A scan through the > standard library may be instructive, where there are some modules that > expose a single class (StringIO, pprint) and others that expose many, > and some that expose none at all. AHA! Here we see the insidious Python package system at work! ;) I said "file" and you assume that I am talking about the exposed namespace. Files should not have to be isomorphic with namespace! A package that exposes many classes may still use one class per file if it wants to. > In any > case, as I hinted at, I prefer an organic, developer driven approach > to deciding these things, not handed down from above style guidelines. PRECISELY. And in the case of Python, package stucture is dictated, not by a style guideline, but by the design flaws of Python's package system. Martin -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
