2016-11-30 10:01 GMT+01:00 Serhiy Storchaka <storch...@gmail.com>: >> Uniformize argument names of "call" functions >> >> * Callable object: callable, o, callable_object => func >> * Object for method calls: o => obj >> * Method name: name or nameid => method > > This change looks wrong to me. "callable" and "callable_object" are better > names for functions like PyObject_Call(), since it supports not just > functions, but any callables. "name" is appropriate name of the parameter > that denotes a method name, not a method object.
(Oh no, I avoided a review to try to avoid bikeshedding...) I tried to be consistent between argument names and function names. For example, I expect that you have to pass a *function* to PyObject_CallFunction(), and that you have to pass a *method* to PyObject_CallMethod(). -- In third party code, I don't recall having seen a variable called "callable" (or they are very rare?). In the stdlib, "func" is much more common than "callable", raw statistics (default branch): $ grep '\<func\>' Lib/*.py|wc -l 318 $ grep '\<callable\>' Lib/*.py|wc -l 115 In CPython C code, "func" is also more common than "callable" (3.5 branch): $ grep '\<func\>' */*.c|wc -l 725 $ grep '\<callable\>' */*.c|wc -l 126 My concern is not to be accurate in the variable name, just to use a convenient, short and common name to *uniformize* the code. Victor _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
