On Fri, 09 May 2014 10:35:09 -0600, Michael Torrie wrote: > On 05/08/2014 11:49 PM, Metallicow wrote: >> I guess to be more clear here is a small code snippet that shows what >> is happening more readably. Hence the underscores question. > > In a case like this I'd probably prefer to number the methods rather > than add underscores to the end of the names. My current font, for > example, connects the underscores together, so it's a bit hard from a > glance to tell if it's just two underscores or three. > > I'd prefer OnLeftDClick1, OnLeftDClick2, OnLeftDClick3, for example.
Yes, this. I wouldn't say that underscore suffixes are *reserved* only for avoiding name clashes with keywords and built-ins, e.g. in_ type_ etc., but I can't think of any other reason why you would want to end an identifier with an underscore. As for multiple underscores like in__ in___ in____ that's just too hideous for words. > And I also prefer pep8 method names as well, on_left_dclick1, etc. But > when the underlying library doesn't follow pep8, then I guess it does > not matter (self.Bind is from the library I presume). And again, this. -- Steven D'Aprano http://import-that.dreamwidth.org/ -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
