Paul McGuire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > It is a bit reassuring that I am not the only one who turns a blind > eye to this part of the PEP, that l_c_w_u bothers others as well.
I see similar support for lower_case, and opposition to camelCase. It's nice that we're both reassured by what we see. What now? > We will continue to see std lib code written using l_c_w_u. > Ordinarily, this would little concern me, since I go to read std lib > code about once/year. But it does mean that additions to the > external API to the std lib will contain method calls such as > get_files, send_message, delete_record, etc. I think this just > promotes a perception of Python as "so last century." If clearly-readable code is "so last century", I don't see how that's a negative. > It would also seem we will continue to see 3rd party developers use > whatever their personal taste and/or project coding standards > dictate. So for these users, this part of the PEP is "not really a > code, its more of a guideline."* Many of these libraries have users, and even primary developers, who hope to find the modules added to the standard library one day. I think using lower_case for names is good style in all Python code, for consistency. -- \ "You could augment an earwig to the point where it understood | `\ nuclear physics, but it would still be a very stupid thing to | _o__) do!" -- The Doctor, _The Two Doctors_ | Ben Finney -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
