Lie Ryan wrote:
Jean-Michel Pichavant wrote:
<snip>
Maybe I've been a little bit too dictatorial when I was saying that
renaming namespaces should be avoided.
Sure your way of doing make sense. In fact they're 2 main purposes of
having strong coding rules:
1/ ease the coder's life
2/ ease the reader's life
The perfect rule satisfies both of them, but when I have to choose, I
prefer number 2. Renaming packages, especially those who are world wide
used, may confuse the reader and force him to browse into more code.
From the OP example, I was just pointing the fact that **he alone**
gains 3 characters when **all** the readers need to ask what means "np".
Renaming namespaces with a well chosen name (meaningful) is harmless.
As long as you keep all import statements at the head of the file, there
is no readability problems with renaming namespace.
Glance at the header file, see:
import numpy as np
and it's not hard to mentally switch np as numpy...
well, as long as your header doesn't look like this:
import numpy as np
import itertools as it
import Tkinter as Tk
from time import time as t
yep, your example is good, no namespace renaming ... :o)
I would gladly accept the following renaming:
import theMostEfficientPythonPackageInTheWorld as meppw
Hopefully, package names are often usable as provided.
Moreover, writing numpy instead of np is not harder for the coder than
switching mentally from np to numpy for the reader. It's just about who
you want to make the life easier, the coder or the reader ?
br
Jean-Michel
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
