Guido van Rossum writes:
> […] I've removed the offending paragraph from the PEP. Note that it
> still recommends short, all-lowercase module and package names -- it
> just doesn't use computers to motivate it.
That suits me too. I think the justification was valid, but its absence
doesn't harm
Regardless, I don't think the continued existence of FAT filesystems can be
perceived as a threat to module names, so I've removed the offending
paragraph from the PEP. Note that it still recommends short, all-lowercase
module and package names -- it just doesn't use computers to motivate it.
On T
Even thumb drives use VFAT. Yes it's an ugly hack, but the names aren't
limited to 8.3.
On Oct 20, 2015 6:59 PM, "Ben Finney" wrote:
> "Gregory P. Smith" writes:
>
> > There haven't been computers with less than 80 character file or path
> > name element length limits in wide use in decades... ;
"Gregory P. Smith" writes:
> There haven't been computers with less than 80 character file or path
> name element length limits in wide use in decades... ;)
Not true, your computer will happily mount severely-limited filesystems.
Indeed, I'd wager it has done so many times this year.
It is *fil
