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 ;-). Regards, Stephan -- Stephan Richter CBU Physics & Chemistry (B.S.) / Tufts Physics (Ph.D. student) Web2k - Web Software Design, Development and Training _______________________________________________ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3email@example.com Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com