Yet Another Case Question

Martijn Faassen m.faassen at vet.uu.nl
Tue Feb 25 00:51:08 CET 2003


Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters <mertz at gnosis.cx> wrote:
> The freedom granted in the latter case seems much more Pythonic in
> philosophy (albeit not in actual syntactic constraint).  The earlier
> programmer provides friendly hints and guidelines for a later one, rather
> than constrain precisely what the later one can do through
> bondage-and-discipline language rules.

Actually on a syntax level Python is fairly strict; if you want friendly
hints there use Perl. Python for instance *enforces* the use of 
indentation for block structure. I've heard a lot of people complain that
this takes away their ability to express their own thing.

Indentation and case sensitivity are not exactly equivalent as 
indentation doesn't require one needs to use the code the same way, but
talking about the bondage-and-discipline bogeyman here is a bit 
inconsistent if you appreciate Python's enforced indentation.

I guess Python would indeed be more consistent if it enforced the use
of camelCase or something. I'm not exactly sure how it should, though
not allowing the use of the underscore in function/method names and class 
names might be a reasonable place to start. Though this would raise
implementation complexity as there are quite a few edge cases that
trouble the water.. (right now methods are just one kind of attribute,
which is a nice orthogonal semantic)

Regards,

Martijn
-- 
History of the 20th Century: WW1, WW2, WW3?
No, WWW -- Could we be going in the right direction?




More information about the Python-list mailing list