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
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
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
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
-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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
-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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
-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
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,
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
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
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
33 matches
Mail list logo
