On Feb 2, 11:07 am, Jean-Michel Pichavant <jeanmic...@sequans.com> wrote: > Carl Banks wrote: > > On Feb 2, 2:49 am, Jean-Michel Pichavant <jeanmic...@sequans.com> > > wrote: > > >> Carl Banks wrote: > > >>> Name your modules "send_email.py" or "sort_email.py" or if it's a > >>> library module of related functions, "email_handling.py". Modules and > >>> scripts do things (usually), they should be given action words as > >>> names. > > >>> (**) Questionable though it be, if the Standard Library wants to use > >>> an "innocuous" name, It can. > > >> That does not solve anything, > > > Of course it does, it solves the problem of having poorly-named > > modules. It also helps reduce possibility of name clashes. > > Actually don't you think it will increase the possibility ? There are > much less possibilties of properly naming an object than badly naming it.
You've got to be kidding me, you're saying that a bad name like email.py is less likely to clash than a more descriptive name like send_email.py? > So if everybody tend to properly name their object with their obvious > version like you proposed, the set of possible names will decrease, > increasing the clash ratio. I did not propose obvious module names. I said obvious names like email.py are bad; more descriptive names like send_email.py are better. Carl Banks -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
