On Friday 24 August 2007 09:34, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
> Well, this may sound harsh, but I see some appeal in actually forcing
> a particular coding-style on everybody.
That's not harsh. That's the point of a coding style. :-) The long-term
benefits are greater.
> It's soo late for anything
> that has been started already, but I don't see a reason why we simply
> can't say:
> If you start a new project on svn.zope.org, it'll have to be in
> PEP8 styling.
> The rule being behind this (as already mentioned above), that
> consistency values higher than personal preferences.
But if you prefer consistency, then we really should be staying with the Zope
3 style guide, which is effectively PEP 8 with camel case methods, functions
and attributes. Also, the Zope 3 style guide does more than PEP 8 as it
discusses other files and package structure as well. So, maybe we should
write another official ZF document with our style guide capturing the result
of this discussion.
Oh, I forgot to comment on the z3c namespace: I was expecting this
response. ;-) This is one of the bite-the-bullet cases I am torn about too,
since I want to encourage people checking in stuff into z3c -- as a here is
my stuff namespace -- but on the other hand I do like consistency.
That said, I guess I could retrieve from "one style for a namespace" in the
interest of keeping z3c open for all to contribute to. But I certainly would
not switch to PEP8; we worked too hard to make the original Zope 3 tree Zope
3 style guide compliant (mostly me running after Jim reminding him --
failures to do so are seen in a few packages like zope.schema ;-).
CBU Physics & Chemistry (B.S.) / Tufts Physics (Ph.D. student)
Web2k - Web Software Design, Development and Training
Zope3-dev mailing list