Python 3 consistency proposal
bignose+hates-spam at benfinney.id.au
Wed Mar 25 02:16:55 CET 2009
Steven D'Aprano <steven at REMOVE.THIS.cybersource.com.au> writes:
> If you *are* willing to do the work, the chances would still be
> pretty slim. Guido has just rejected a patch adding PEP 8 compliant
> aliases for types like datetime […] As Guido has quoted before, "A
> foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds".
Indeed, that quote is prominent in PEP 8 itself.
gert <gert.cuykens at gmail.com> writes:
> Not that I can't live without, but I am just wondering why they did
> not [name built-in types consistently with other classes] in the
> first place?
Because, in the first place, built-in types were disjoint from
user-defined classes. The latter could not derive from the former, and
it was helpful to know the difference.
The reason no longer exists (since built-in types and user types are
now in a unified hierarchy), but the difference is well entrenched now
and I personally see little benefit in changing it.
\ “The number of UNIX installations has grown to 10, with more |
`\ expected.” —Unix Programmer's Manual, 2nd Ed., 1972-06-12 |
More information about the Python-list