Ka-Ping Yee wrote:
In a fair number of cases, Python doesn't follow its own recommended
naming conventions. Changing these things would break backward
compatibility, so they are out of the question for Python 2.*, but
it would be nice to keep these in mind for Python 3K.
Constants in
Brett Cannon wrote:
I am fine with changing the built-in types, but changing the built-in
singletons just looks *really* odd to me. So odd that I just don't
want to see them changed. I mean when I think of constants, I think
of a variable that references an object and that reference never
On Fri, 30 Dec 2005, Reinhold Birkenfeld wrote:
Ka-Ping Yee wrote:
Constants in all caps:
NONE, TRUE, FALSE, ELLIPSIS
That's ugly.
I know it looks ugly to you now. But there's a good reason why we use
capitalization for class names -- anyone reading code who comes across
a
Brett Cannon wrote:
I am fine with changing the built-in types, but changing the built-in
singletons just looks *really* odd to me. So odd that I just don't
want to see them changed. I mean when I think of constants, I think
of a variable that references an object and that reference never
Ka-Ping Yee wrote:
Actually, I thought some of them would become reserved words in P3k,
anyway.
That would be cool. If so, it would make sense for them to be all in
lowercase.
And rename None to null in the process :-)
Regards,
Martin
___
On Fri, 30 Dec 2005, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
Ka-Ping Yee wrote:
That would be cool. If so, it would make sense for them to be all in
lowercase.
And rename None to null in the process :-)
Is there a really good reason to do that? It's not obvious to me.
-- ?!ng
Ka-Ping Yee wrote:
On Fri, 30 Dec 2005, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
Ka-Ping Yee wrote:
That would be cool. If so, it would make sense for them to be all in
lowercase.
And rename None to null in the process :-)
Is there a really good reason to do that? It's not obvious to me.
That was
On Friday 30 December 2005 06:31, Ka-Ping Yee wrote:
Is there a really good reason to do that? It's not obvious to me.
No more than there is to rename None to none or NONE.
-Fred
--
Fred L. Drake, Jr. fdrake at acm.org
___
Python-Dev mailing
On Fri, 30 Dec 2005, Fred L. Drake, Jr. wrote:
On Friday 30 December 2005 06:31, Ka-Ping Yee wrote:
Is there a really good reason to do that? It's not obvious to me.
No more than there is to rename None to none or NONE.
For that, there is a reason: None is not a class.
-- ?!ng
I think the discussion is coming to a clear conclusion here not to do
this (except for the standard library classes like anydbm.error). I'm
piping in with my own -1 (for all the sane reasons) to hopefully stop
this thread quickly. We don't need more noise here.
--Guido
On 12/29/05, Ka-Ping Yee
On Fri, Dec 30, 2005 at 10:16:43AM -0500, Barry Warsaw wrote:
On Thu, 2005-12-29 at 22:29 -0600, Ka-Ping Yee wrote:
In a fair number of cases, Python doesn't follow its own recommended
naming conventions. Changing these things would break backward
compatibility, so they are out of the
In a fair number of cases, Python doesn't follow its own recommended
naming conventions. Changing these things would break backward
compatibility, so they are out of the question for Python 2.*, but
it would be nice to keep these in mind for Python 3K.
Constants in all caps:
NONE,
On 12/29/05, Ka-Ping Yee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a fair number of cases, Python doesn't follow its own recommended
naming conventions. Changing these things would break backward
compatibility, so they are out of the question for Python 2.*, but
it would be nice to keep these in mind for
13 matches
Mail list logo
