fetchinson at googlemail.com
Thu Apr 10 22:58:46 CEST 2008
> > I'm sorry to disappoint you but this project has already been completed:
> > http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0008/
> Daniel, PEP 8 is anything but complete. How much of the following
> simple question can you answer from there:
> Given that you can name things with UpperAndLower, lowerAndUpper,
> lower_and_underscore, etc., what is the convention for naming
> packages, modules, classes, ...
These are actually spelled out in quite some detail.
> PEP 8 very much reminds me of Sun's Java conventions - a start, but
> only a start. Also, in part, controversial.
Which is natural because it's not a standard, only a recommendation.
> (How wide do you think Python code should be?)
I don't think it should be part of any recommendation.
> Finally, lacking in basic organization.
What would it gain by having 'basic organization'?
> (This seems to be a disease that infects almost all standards.)
PEP-8 is not a standard, it's a recommendation that may or may not be
followed without any consequences.
> We can do better.
What would we -- or anyone -- gain by doing better?
> As a guess, GvR would be happy to have someone fill out PEP 8.
Did you ask him?
I personally think that since coding convention is what it is -- a
convention -- it should not be codified by any recommendation or
standard or some such any further than PEP-8. You might think of
course otherwise and might put together a stricter and more
encompassing document if you think that's useful, just don't expect
anyone to follow it.
More information about the Python-list