On Feb 2, 8:52 pm, Steven D'Aprano <ste...@remove.this.cybersource.com.au> wrote: > On Tue, 02 Feb 2010 19:55:15 -0800, Carl Banks wrote: > > On Feb 2, 5:49 pm, Steven D'Aprano > > <ste...@remove.this.cybersource.com.au> wrote: > >> On Tue, 02 Feb 2010 12:26:16 -0800, Carl Banks wrote: > >> > 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. > > >> But surely send_email.py doesn't just send email, it parses email and > >> receives email as well? > > > No, it doesn't. > > Nevertheless, as a general principle, modules will tend to be multi- > purpose and/or generic.
Uh, no? If your module is a library with a public API, then you might defensibly have a "generic and/or multi-purpose module", but if that's the case you should have already christened it something unique. Otherwise modules should stick to a single purpose that can be summarized in a short action word or phrase. Carl Banks -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
