On May 22, 2009, at 12:34 PM, Georg Brandl wrote:
> > Doug Hellmann schrieb: >> >> On May 13, 2009, at 3:31 AM, Georg Brandl wrote: >> >>> >>> Looking at Python naming tradition, both "type" and "classobj" would >>> be >>> candidates. "klass" is also commonly used when a Python >>> identifier is >>> called for, but of these, only "classobj" would be possible I think. >> >> "classobj" is good, but why is it the only one "possible"? > > Well, "type" may be correct for Python, but it is far from the > traditional > "class". "klass" may be fine in code, but it doesn't read well in > documents > (people will wonder if it's misspelled). > > All IMO, of course. All of that makes sense. I assumed by "possible" you meant there was some technical limitation, but I see your point now. Doug --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sphinx-dev" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sphinx-dev?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
