Ben Finney a écrit :
Steven D'Aprano <ste...@remove.this.cybersource.com.au> writes:
If you *are* willing to do the work, the chances would still be
pretty slim. Guido has just rejected a patch adding PEP 8 compliant
aliases for types like datetime […] As Guido has quoted before, "A
foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds".
Indeed, that quote is prominent in PEP 8 itself.
gert <gert.cuyk...@gmail.com> writes:
Not that I can't live without, but I am just wondering why they did
not [name built-in types consistently with other classes] in the
first place?
Because, in the first place, built-in types were disjoint from
user-defined classes. The latter could not derive from the former, and
it was helpful to know the difference.
The reason no longer exists (since built-in types and user types are
now in a unified hierarchy), but the difference is well entrenched now
and I personally see little benefit in changing it.
<mode="not a chance">
Also and FWIW, since there's no functional nor syntaxical differences
between a call to a function returning an object and a call to a class,
if we where to rename anything, it would be better to drop the MixedCase
convention for classes and rename *all* types to all_lower. That way,
you can safely rewrite a class as a factory function (or a factory
function as a class) without having to choose between breaking the API
or violating pep08 !-)
</mode>
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
