On Sun, Aug 10, 2008 at 9:32 AM, Stefan Behnel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Martin v. Löwis wrote:
>>> Given the fact that most packages that depend on ET already use more than
>>> one
>>> try-except import for these modules anyway (and likely a separate module
>>> that
>>> cares for the right im
Martin v. Löwis wrote:
>> Given the fact that most packages that depend on ET already use more than one
>> try-except import for these modules anyway (and likely a separate module that
>> cares for the right import), I don't see the situation becoming any worse by
>> making them PEP8 compliant.
>
> I wonder why the ElementTree modules in Py3k's xml.etree still do not follow
> PEP8 naming (ok, besides the obvious explanation that no-one renamed them so
> far). Was there a decision that they should keep their name despite the
> general push towards a uniformly named standard library?
There w
On Sun, Aug 10, 2008 at 7:18 AM, Stefan Behnel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I wonder why the ElementTree modules in Py3k's xml.etree still do not follow
> PEP8 naming (ok, besides the obvious explanation that no-one renamed them so
> far). Was there a decision that they should keep their na
Hi,
I wonder why the ElementTree modules in Py3k's xml.etree still do not follow
PEP8 naming (ok, besides the obvious explanation that no-one renamed them so
far). Was there a decision that they should keep their name despite the
general push towards a uniformly named standard library? Or would it
