Is PEP-8 a Code or More of a Guideline?

[Ben Finney]

Paul McGuire <ptmcg at austin.rr.com> writes:

> It is a bit reassuring that I am not the only one who turns a blind
> eye to this part of the PEP, that l_c_w_u bothers others as well.

I see similar support for lower_case, and opposition to
camelCase. It's nice that we're both reassured by what we see. What
now?

> We will continue to see std lib code written using l_c_w_u.
> Ordinarily, this would little concern me, since I go to read std lib
> code about once/year.  But it does mean that additions to the
> external API to the std lib will contain method calls such as
> get_files, send_message, delete_record, etc.  I think this just
> promotes a perception of Python as "so last century."

If clearly-readable code is "so last century", I don't see how that's
a negative.

> It would also seem we will continue to see 3rd party developers use
> whatever their personal taste and/or project coding standards
> dictate.  So for these users, this part of the PEP is "not really a
> code, its more of a guideline."*

Many of these libraries have users, and even primary developers, who
hope to find the modules added to the standard library one day. I
think using lower_case for names is good style in all Python code, for
consistency.

-- 
 \       "You could augment an earwig to the point where it understood |
  `\     nuclear physics, but it would still be a very stupid thing to |
_o__)                           do!"  -- The Doctor, _The Two Doctors_ |
Ben Finney