On Jan 27, 2008 12:29 AM, Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This will be a bikeshed argument until Guido speaks out his > preference/decision I guess. > > But isn't it a more common solution to name the base class just Number and > derive from it by means of using Base.Number or something similar? Looks > cleaner to me rather than all these odd looking pre- or suffixes. (I am not > charmed about ABC in the name at all to be honest, doesn't really give me a > Python feeling.)
My preference is still *not* to use a naming convention. I just suggested it as a lesser evil compared to segregating all abstract base classes in an "abc" package ghetto. I really don't see why names like "Number" or "MutableSequence" would need any additional help to make the reader see they are abstract. I note that at least for built-in types there will be the naming convention that concrete implementation classes are all lowercase, like int, float, list, namedtuple, defaultdict, and so on, while the ABCs all have a Capitalized[Words] name: Hashable, Number, Real, MutableMapping, etc. -- --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/) _______________________________________________ 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
