On 8/24/07, Stephan Richter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > That's not harsh. That's the point of a coding style. :-) The long-term > benefits are greater.
Agreed! > But if you prefer consistency, then we really should be staying with the Zope > 3 style guide, This, of course, all depends on the answer to the question: Consistency with what? Zope 3 history? The larger Python community? (Don't think the world agrees on PEP 8...) > 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. Maybe. > 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 What bugs me most is that changing the style used keeps coming up; it's silly to keep trying to change it. *That* is what defeats the benefits of having one to start with. I don't really care whether the style is the "classic" Zope 3 style or PEP 8, as long as it never changes. -Fred -- Fred L. Drake, Jr. <fdrake at gmail.com> "Chaos is the score upon which reality is written." --Henry Miller _______________________________________________ Zope3-dev mailing list Zope3firstname.lastname@example.org Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com