Steve Holden wrote: > Carl Banks wrote: >> On Fri, 07 Sep 2007 01:30:00 -0500, Sergio Correia wrote: >>> Hi, I'm kinda new to Python (that means, I'm a total noob here), but >>> have one doubt which is more about consistency that anything else. >>> >>> Why if PEP 8 says that "Almost without exception, class names use the >>> CapWords convention", does the most basic class, object, is lowercase? >> It said "almost". :) >> > Indeed it did, and never forget that most of PEP 8 was derived from an > essay by Guido whose original title was "A Foolish Consistency is the > Hobgoblin of Little Minds" ... >>> I found a thread about this: >>> http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-list/2007-April/437365.html >>> where its stated that -object- is actually a type, not a class; but the >>> idea still doesn't convince me. > You don't have to be convinced. You just have to do what the PEP says > yourself and ignore the people who *haven't* done what it says > (particularly if they are core Python developers). > >> There's a false dichotomy there: it's not an either-or situation. Almost >> everyone would agree that new-style classes, defined by the Python class >> statement, are both classes and types. Some might squabble over whether >> object is class, but it has nothing to do with why object is spelled in >> lower-case. >> >> The reason why "object" is lower case is because built-in types are >> spelled in lower-case. Why are built-in types lower case? Because many >> built-in types were originially functions. For example, "int" and "str" >> were once functions. When these symbols became the names of their >> respective types, they kept the lower-case spelling, and it became >> convention for built-in types to be spelled lower-case. >> > In other words: "Get over it" ;-) > > regards > Steve Surely Python 3000 gives the opportunity to introduce some consistency.
Does the user care whether an object is implemented in C? Colin W. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
