> > I'm sorry to disappoint you but this project has already been completed: > > > > http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0008/ > > Daniel, PEP 8 is anything but complete. How much of the following > simple question can you answer from there: > > Given that you can name things with UpperAndLower, lowerAndUpper, > lower_and_underscore, etc., what is the convention for naming > packages, modules, classes, ...
These are actually spelled out in quite some detail. > PEP 8 very much reminds me of Sun's Java conventions - a start, but > only a start. Also, in part, controversial. Which is natural because it's not a standard, only a recommendation. > (How wide do you think Python code should be?) I don't think it should be part of any recommendation. > Finally, lacking in basic organization. What would it gain by having 'basic organization'? > (This seems to be a disease that infects almost all standards.) PEP-8 is not a standard, it's a recommendation that may or may not be followed without any consequences. > We can do better. What would we -- or anyone -- gain by doing better? > As a guess, GvR would be happy to have someone fill out PEP 8. Did you ask him? I personally think that since coding convention is what it is -- a convention -- it should not be codified by any recommendation or standard or some such any further than PEP-8. You might think of course otherwise and might put together a stricter and more encompassing document if you think that's useful, just don't expect anyone to follow it. Cheers, Daniel -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
