Re: [Zope-dev] Coding style clarifications

2009-03-04 Thread Chris Withers
Dieter Maurer wrote: Zvezdan Petkovic wrote at 2009-2-19 13:06 -0500: I can adapt to any style and believe that the fine grain details should not be dogmatically enforced but rather allow for variations in such subjective preferences. +1 + sys.maxint Chris -- Simplistix - Content

Re: [Zope-dev] Coding style clarifications

2009-02-21 Thread Dieter Maurer
Zvezdan Petkovic wrote at 2009-2-19 13:06 -0500: I can adapt to any style and believe that the fine grain details should not be dogmatically enforced but rather allow for variations in such subjective preferences. +1 -- Dieter ___ Zope-Dev

Re: [Zope-dev] Coding style clarifications

2009-02-20 Thread Jim Fulton
On Feb 19, 2009, at 2:07 PM, Marius Gedminas wrote: ... -1 for repeating english.adjective.fully english.adverb.qualified english.noun.package english.noun.names all over the place in the code If you have package hierarchies remotely that deep, you have bigger problems. If dotted names

Re: [Zope-dev] Coding style clarifications

2009-02-20 Thread Jim Fulton
On Feb 19, 2009, at 4:07 PM, Shane Hathaway wrote: Fred Drake wrote: On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 11:03 AM, Jim Fulton j...@zope.com wrote: BTW, I strongly discourage from imports. (I didn't always have this opinion, but have seen the error of my ways. Thanks to Fred Drake for nudging me in

Re: [Zope-dev] Coding style clarifications

2009-02-20 Thread Jim Fulton
On Feb 20, 2009, at 7:48 AM, Joachim König wrote: ... 2. Depending on what code you might unearth, Interface could be either zope.interface.Interface, or the older version Interface.Interface. Package qualification makes this unambiguous. if module qualification is enough and from

Re: [Zope-dev] Coding style clarifications

2009-02-20 Thread Andreas Jung
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 20.02.2009 15:39 Uhr, Jim Fulton wrote: On Feb 20, 2009, at 7:48 AM, Joachim König wrote: ... 2. Depending on what code you might unearth, Interface could be either zope.interface.Interface, or the older version Interface.Interface.

Re: [Zope-dev] Coding style clarifications

2009-02-20 Thread Martijn Faassen
Jim Fulton wrote: BTW, I strongly discourage from imports. (I didn't always have this opinion, but have seen the error of my ways. Thanks to Fred Drake for nudging me in this direction.) IMO, this is wildly more important than any of the issues raised in this thread. I like from

Re: [Zope-dev] Coding style clarifications

2009-02-20 Thread Martijn Faassen
Hey, Joachim König wrote: import zope.interface as interface Surprisingly enough this actually has a subtly different behavior than: from zope import interface the former can create circular import situations where the latter doesn't. Regards, Martijn

Re: [Zope-dev] Coding style clarifications

2009-02-20 Thread Martijn Faassen
Jim Fulton wrote: On Feb 19, 2009, at 2:07 PM, Marius Gedminas wrote: ... -1 for repeating english.adjective.fully english.adverb.qualified english.noun.package english.noun.names all over the place in the code If you have package hierarchies remotely that deep, you have bigger

Re: [Zope-dev] Coding style clarifications

2009-02-20 Thread Jim Fulton
On Feb 20, 2009, at 10:15 AM, Martijn Faassen wrote: Jim Fulton wrote: BTW, I strongly discourage from imports. (I didn't always have this opinion, but have seen the error of my ways. Thanks to Fred Drake for nudging me in this direction.) IMO, this is wildly more important than any of

Re: [Zope-dev] Coding style clarifications

2009-02-20 Thread Martijn Faassen
Hey Christian, You do realize you started a bikeshed discussion right? Suddenly people wake up and spout opinions because everybody has an opinion about this. :) Regards, Martijn ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org

Re: [Zope-dev] Coding style clarifications

2009-02-20 Thread Jim Fulton
On Feb 20, 2009, at 10:22 AM, Martijn Faassen wrote: Jim Fulton wrote: On Feb 19, 2009, at 2:07 PM, Marius Gedminas wrote: ... -1 for repeating english.adjective.fully english.adverb.qualified english.noun.package english.noun.names all over the place in the code If you have package

Re: [Zope-dev] Coding style clarifications

2009-02-20 Thread Martijn Faassen
Hey, Andreas Jung wrote: I followed the whole thread with some amusement. There are too many personal coding styles on the market which makes it impossible to regulate all all and everything. At least this discussion about about how to write imports properly appears esoteric to me. Yeah, I

Re: [Zope-dev] Coding style clarifications

2009-02-20 Thread Martijn Faassen
Hi there, Names exported to a containing package cause circular import problems whether or not from imports are used. I've seen from imports make this worse. I believe you've seen cases where they make it better. I think the only way to avoid this is to use a deferred import mechanism such

Re: [Zope-dev] Coding style clarifications

2009-02-20 Thread Jim Fulton
On Feb 20, 2009, at 11:00 AM, Martijn Faassen wrote: ... The main take-home message was that the import mechanics of Python are rather surprising in operation here and it's very hard to reason about it. It has something to do with 'foo' having to be more initialized during importing than in

Re: [Zope-dev] Coding style clarifications

2009-02-20 Thread Martijn Faassen
Hey, On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 5:05 PM, Jim Fulton j...@zope.com wrote: [snip] You will still likely have other problems unless you use deferred imports which will generally solve this problem in a robust way. I've created quite a few packages that have this structure without any problems in my

Re: [Zope-dev] Coding style clarifications

2009-02-20 Thread Tres Seaver
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Jim Fulton wrote: On Feb 20, 2009, at 10:15 AM, Martijn Faassen wrote: snip This looks like a religious debate though. Maybe. The most important reason for a style guide is to make code more readable. In my experience, from imports make

Re: [Zope-dev] Coding style clarifications

2009-02-20 Thread Martijn Faassen
Hi there, Jim Fulton wrote: [snip] I suspect there are two possibilities: * no API defined in __init__.py and absolute imports * API defined in __init__.py and dotted.package.name.references don't work. In what way don't they work? I don't see how this has anything to do with from

Re: [Zope-dev] Coding style clarifications

2009-02-20 Thread Christian Theune
On Fri, 2009-02-20 at 18:18 +0100, Martijn Faassen wrote: We discovered this when Christian Theune said he wanted his package __init__.py empty as otherwise he runs into circular import issues. Some of the others including myself were puzzled as we put APIs in __init__.py quite frequently

Re: [Zope-dev] Coding style clarifications

2009-02-20 Thread Martijn Faassen
Christian Theune wrote: On Fri, 2009-02-20 at 18:18 +0100, Martijn Faassen wrote: We discovered this when Christian Theune said he wanted his package __init__.py empty as otherwise he runs into circular import issues. Some of the others including myself were puzzled as we put APIs in

[Zope-dev] Coding style clarifications

2009-02-19 Thread Christian Theune
Hi, while gathering, cleaning and consolidating the various statements that float around about the coding style for Zope 3, I found a couple of issues that I'd like to get clarification for. What I found is currently gathered at

Re: [Zope-dev] Coding style clarifications

2009-02-19 Thread Wichert Akkerman
Previously Christian Theune wrote: Hi, while gathering, cleaning and consolidating the various statements that float around about the coding style for Zope 3, I found a couple of issues that I'd like to get clarification for. What I found is currently gathered at

Re: [Zope-dev] Coding style clarifications

2009-02-19 Thread Zvezdan Petkovic
On Feb 19, 2009, at 5:13 AM, Wichert Akkerman wrote: Previously Christian Theune wrote: Which attribute naming is current? == Do we use under_scores or mixedCaseNames? I think I remember that we decided to follow PEP 8 for new code and invoke the local

Re: [Zope-dev] Coding style clarifications

2009-02-19 Thread Stephan Richter
On Thursday 19 February 2009, Christian Theune wrote: Which attribute naming is current? == Do we use under_scores or mixedCaseNames? I think I remember that we decided to follow PEP 8 for new code and invoke the local consistentency rule on old code. Is that

Re: [Zope-dev] Coding style clarifications

2009-02-19 Thread Stephan Richter
On Thursday 19 February 2009, Zvezdan Petkovic wrote: and the decision that was apparently adopted is in this document   (section titled Coding style): http://svn.zope.org/*checkout*/Sandbox/philikon/foundation/maintaining-soft ware.txt Except that not all people agreed to that, including me.

Re: [Zope-dev] Coding style clarifications

2009-02-19 Thread Zvezdan Petkovic
Which attribute naming is current? == Do we use under_scores or mixedCaseNames? I think I remember that we decided to follow PEP 8 for new code and invoke the local consistentency rule on old code. Is that correct? According to this document in Zope3

Re: [Zope-dev] Coding style clarifications

2009-02-19 Thread Jim Fulton
On Feb 19, 2009, at 4:47 AM, Christian Theune wrote: Hi, while gathering, cleaning and consolidating the various statements that float around about the coding style for Zope 3, I found a couple of issues that I'd like to get clarification for. What I found is currently gathered at

Re: [Zope-dev] Coding style clarifications

2009-02-19 Thread Fred Drake
On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 11:03 AM, Jim Fulton j...@zope.com wrote: BTW, I strongly discourage from imports. (I didn't always have this opinion, but have seen the error of my ways. Thanks to Fred Drake for nudging me in this direction.) IMO, this is wildly more important than any of the issues

Re: [Zope-dev] Coding style clarifications

2009-02-19 Thread Zvezdan Petkovic
On Feb 19, 2009, at 11:03 AM, Jim Fulton wrote: I sort my imports. Period. This makes from imports come before regular imports (because f comes before i). I discourage from imports, so this isn't much of an issue for me except for old code. Having imports sorted takes very little effort and

Re: [Zope-dev] Coding style clarifications

2009-02-19 Thread Tres Seaver
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Zvezdan Petkovic wrote: On Feb 19, 2009, at 11:03 AM, Jim Fulton wrote: I sort my imports. Period. This makes from imports come before regular imports (because f comes before i). I discourage from imports, so this isn't much of an issue for me

Re: [Zope-dev] Coding style clarifications

2009-02-19 Thread Zvezdan Petkovic
On Feb 19, 2009, at 12:43 PM, Tres Seaver wrote: Exactly . As I mentioned in the previous post, sorting is the *key* here. [Pun intended]. Grouping (python, zope., myapp. modules order), or non-grouping, becomes a non-issue when imports are sorted. +1 - -1. I prefer the PEP8 grouping,

Re: [Zope-dev] Coding style clarifications

2009-02-19 Thread Jim Fulton
On Feb 19, 2009, at 12:43 PM, Tres Seaver wrote: - -1. I prefer the PEP8 grouping, where stdlib imports are separated from dependecy imports, which are separated from local imports. Note that this is *not* subjective (an import is unambiguously in exaclty one of those three

Re: [Zope-dev] Coding style clarifications

2009-02-19 Thread Marius Gedminas
I'm with Tres on both issues: +1 for PEP-8 import grouping (sorted alphabetically within each group), -1 for repeating english.adjective.fully english.adverb.qualified english.noun.package english.noun.names all over the place in the code (this also ties with my preference of trying to keep all my

Re: [Zope-dev] Coding style clarifications

2009-02-19 Thread Shane Hathaway
Fred Drake wrote: On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 11:03 AM, Jim Fulton j...@zope.com wrote: BTW, I strongly discourage from imports. (I didn't always have this opinion, but have seen the error of my ways. Thanks to Fred Drake for nudging me in this direction.) IMO, this is wildly more important than