Python conventions

Daniel Fetchinson fetchinson at
Thu Apr 10 22:58:46 CEST 2008

> > I'm sorry to disappoint you but this project has already been completed:
> >
> >
> 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 mailing list