On Tue, May 03, 2005, Phillip J. Eby wrote: > At 09:53 AM 5/3/05 -0700, Guido van Rossum wrote: >> >>I just came across another use case that is fairly common in the >>standard library: redirecting sys.stdout. This is just a beauty (in >>fact I'll add it to the PEP): >> >>def saving_stdout(f): > > Very nice; may I suggest 'redirecting_stdout' as the name instead?
You may; I'd nitpick that to either "redirect_stdout" or "redirected_stdout". "redirecting_stdout" is slightly longer and doesn't have quite the right flavor to my eye. I might even go for "make_stdout" or "using_stdout"; that relies on people understanding that a block means temporary usage. > This and other examples from the PEP still have a certain awkwardness > of phrasing in their names. A lot of them seem to cry out for a > "with" prefix, although maybe that's part of the heritage of PEP 310. > But Lisp has functions like 'with-open-file', so I don't think that > it's *all* a PEP 310 influence on the examples. Yes, that's why I've been pushing for "with". -- Aahz ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <*> http://www.pythoncraft.com/ "It's 106 miles to Chicago. We have a full tank of gas, a half-pack of cigarettes, it's dark, and we're wearing sunglasses." "Hit it." _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
