On Dec 6, 2010, at 11:40 AM, Fred Drake wrote: > On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 2:21 PM, Raymond Hettinger > <raymond.hettin...@gmail.com> wrote: >> We really ought to stop with the SafeFoo naming convention. >> It is only descriptive to the person who wrote the class or function, >> not to the user who will immediately wonder, "safe from what?" > > Safe from bad vampire movies, of course! > > I'd not recognize the current Safe* class names as a pattern; there > are currently two in the py3k trunk: > > configparser.SafeConfigParser > -- very much a poor name > > xmlrpc.client.SafeTransport > -- perhaps should have been SSLTransport or HTTPSTransport > > I agree the "Safe" prefix isn't meaningful.
IIRC, pprint has a safe_repr() and string.Template has safe_substitute() and pydoc has a safe import. Never new there was so much danger in the standard library :-) Raymond _______________________________________________ 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
