[Python-ideas] PEP 3155 - Qualified name for classes and functions

[Antoine Pitrou]

On Tue, 8 Nov 2011 10:55:40 -0500
Barry Warsaw <barry at python.org> wrote:
> In general, one problem with abbreviations is that they are more difficult for
> non-native English speakers to understand and use.  I've often heard such
> complaints from acquaintances for whom English is not their primary language.
> The other problem is that while *you* know what the 'q' stands for because you
> derived it from the underlying concept, someone who stumbles over it in the
> opposite direction will not know what it means.  Maybe they'll search for it,
> but otherwise, it'll just be a meaningless combination of characters.
> 
> Python has always valued readability over writing convenience, and I think
> this is one of Guido's founding brilliant insights: code is read far more
> often then it is written.  And yet, he managed to find elegant ways of
> expressing code clearly without being overly verbose.
> 
> For these reasons, I strongly believe that this attribute should not be
> abbreviated.
> 
> If the spelled out name is too long, find another one that conveys the same
> information in fewer characters.  Several have been proposed and it's not hard
> to find others.  E.g. __name_details__.

If we go that way, I'd still prefer __qualname__ (but I'm fine with
__qname__ :-)).

Regards

Antoine.