On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 15:46:40 +0200 News123 <news1...@free.fr> wrote: > Andre Alexander Bell wrote: > > On 07/11/2010 10:30 AM, rantingrick wrote: > > >>> So, it is not a disadvantage that the functions you listed above > >>> are named in this way. In the contrary, it is an advantage, as it > >>> keeps newcomers from using stupid variable names. > >> "int" for an Integer is stupid? > >> "list" for a List is stupid? > >> "str" for a String is stupid? > >> > >> What am i missing? > > > > [snip] > > hm, well sometimes I do write generic functions, that do something > with a list or a string or an int. > > [snip] > > I must admit, that I have still problems > to not use the variables range or id >
There are several approaches: - Use range_, id_, and so on. I think this is the proposed convention. Slightly ugly, though. - Use abbreviations, or misspellings like lst, Set, klass, ... Less ugly, but can get weird. - Prepend 'a' to a type name: alist, aset, astr. Similar weirdness potential as above, but more consistent in terms of style. I sometimes take this to the extreme and prepend 'some_'. So really, this is a non issue, at least for me. Having capitalized boolean values ... that is a bit odd, but as long as children are starving in Africa, this isn't very high on my gripe-list. /W -- INVALID? DE! -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
