Docstrings considered too complicated

Jean-Michel Pichavant jeanmichel at sequans.com
Fri Feb 26 15:50:25 CET 2010


Andreas Waldenburger wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Feb 2010 12:51:00 -0800 (PST) John Roth
> <johnroth1 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>   
>> On Feb 24, 1:23 pm, Andreas Waldenburger <use... at geekmail.INVALID>
>> wrote:
>>     
>>> a company that works with my company writes a lot of of their code
>>> in Python (lucky jerks). I've seen their code and it basically
>>> looks like this:
>>>
>>> """Function that does stuff"""
>>> def doStuff():
>>>     while not wise(up):
>>>         yield scorn
>>> [snip]
>>>       
>> Is the problem that they've got the docstring in the wrong place,
>> or that the comment isn't saying anything that can't be read in
>> the method name?
>>
>>     
> It's the first. I am superficial like that. I just needed a docstring
> to illustrate and didn't want to get overly creative.
>
> Not that they don't write redundant docstrings.
>
> And they use mixedCase function/method names.
>   
and ? whatIsTheProblem ?
PEP8 is one style guide, not *the* style guide. There is neither 
technical nor readability issue with mixedCase, classes in PEP 8 using 
MixedCase. The thing is they had to chose one preference for the methods 
and they choose lower_case. Fine, but it's still a matter of preference 
(or arbitrary decision). Since you don't write code for the standard 
library, you can use any other naming convention.
You've may have guessed it, I am using mixedCase method names, and I 
tell you, you cannot compare this in any way with their dumb usage of 
doctrings you've shown above.

That being said, yoru OP's still soemhow funny, I would have shot them 
on sight :-)

JM




More information about the Python-list mailing list