Kay Schluehr wrote:
> What happens when an enthusiast re-implements a stdlib module e.g.
> decimal s.t. it becomes a builtin module? Will the stdlib module serve
> as a wrapper to conform the current API or will the builtin module
> conform to the current interface.
Well, the best example is prob
Kay Schluehr schrieb:
> set, int, float, list, object,...
>
> Don't see any of the basic types following the capitalized word
> convention for classes covered by PEP 08.
These aren't classes, they are types. PEP 8 doesn't specify any
convention for types; it is common to either apply the convent
On 25 Apr., 12:32, Michael Hoffman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Kay Schluehr wrote:
> > My question is: does anyone actually follow guidelines here
>
> Yes.
>
> > and if yes
> > which ones and are they resonable ( e.g. stable with regard to
> > refactoring etc. )?
>
> All of them that I know of. Wh
Marc 'BlackJack' Rintsch wrote:
> In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Kay Schluehr
> wrote:
>
>> set, int, float, list, object,...
>>
>> Don't see any of the basic types following the capitalized word
>> convention for classes covered by PEP 08. This does not hold only for
>> __builtins__ in the strict sense
Kay Schluehr wrote:
> My question is: does anyone actually follow guidelines here
Yes.
> and if yes
> which ones and are they resonable ( e.g. stable with regard to
> refactoring etc. )?
All of them that I know of. What does it mean to be "stable with regard
to refactoring etc."?
--
Michael H
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Kay Schluehr
wrote:
> set, int, float, list, object,...
>
> Don't see any of the basic types following the capitalized word
> convention for classes covered by PEP 08. This does not hold only for
> __builtins__ in the strict sense but also for types defined in builtin
> mo
