Naming Conventions, Where's the Convention Waldo?

[News123]

Andre Alexander Bell wrote:
> On 07/11/2010 10:30 AM, rantingrick wrote:

>>> So, it is not a disadvantage that the functions you listed above are
>>> named in this way. In the contrary, it is an advantage, as it keeps
>>> newcomers from using stupid variable names.
>> "int" for an Integer is stupid?
>> "list" for a List is stupid?
>> "str" for a String is stupid?
>>
>> What am i missing?
> 
> You are missing (from PEP 8):
> 
> --- 8< --- 8< ---
> Class Names
> 
>       Almost without exception, class names use the CapWords convention.
>       Classes for internal use have a leading underscore in addition.
> 
> --- 8< --- 8< ---
> 
> You may want to think of list, int, str, object, ... as classes that
> don't follow this advice with their class name.
> 
> But besides that, shouldn't a variable name reflect it's purpose instead
> of it's type? E.g.

hm, well sometimes I do write generic functions, that do something with
a list or a string or an int.

However a simple way around this is to use following naming style.

to replace
def process_list(list):
	dostuff_with(list)

with
def process_list(alist):
	dostuff_with(alist)

or with
def process_list(a_list):
	dostuff_with(a_list)

I must admit, that I have still problems
to not use the variables range or id