2009/3/2 Armin Ronacher <armin.ronac...@active-4.com>: > Hi, > > Georg Brandl <g.brandl <at> gmx.net> writes: > >> We're already quite inconsistent with type name casing in the collections >> module, so it wouldn't matter so much. (Though I'd find symmetry with >> defaultdict pleasing as well.) > We either have the way to be consistent with defaultdict and dict or with > Counter, MutableMapping etc.
I think "normal" class names are fine for ABCs, but I brought it up because the other dictionary class in collections had a all lowername. > > I think it's a bit too chaotic already to make a fair decision here. If we > seriously consider a C implementation it would probably be a good idea to call > it `odict`. C-Classes are usually lower cased as far as I can see. I don't implementation language should determine naming. -- Regards, Benjamin _______________________________________________ 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
