At 1:04 PM +1200 9/2/08, Greg Ewing wrote: >Antoine Pitrou wrote: > >> I don't see a problem for trivial functional wrappers to classes to be >> capitalized like classes. > >The problem is that the capitalization makes you >think it's a class, suggesting you can do things >with it that you actually can't, e.g. subclassing.
Or that it returns a new object of that kind. >I can't think of any reason to do this. If you >don't want to promise that something is a class, >what possible reason is there for naming it like >one? ... Lower-case names return something about an object. Capitalized names return a new object of the named type (more or less), either via a Class constructor or a Factory object. That's /a/ reason, anyway. I suppose the question is what a capitalized name promises. If it means only "Class", then how should "Returns a new object", either from a Class or a Factory, be shown? Perhaps a new convention is needed for Factories? -- ____________________________________________________________________ TonyN.:' <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ' <http://www.georgeanelson.com/> _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
