On Nov 18, 5:13 pm, Steven D'Aprano <ste...@remove.this.cybersource.com.au> wrote: > On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 15:58:24 -0800, Steve Howell wrote: > > On Nov 18, 2:22 pm, Steven D'Aprano > > <ste...@remove.this.cybersource.com.au> wrote: > >> On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 02:06:49 -0800, Steve Howell wrote: > >> > P.S. The underscores before the method names might look a little > >> > funny for inner methods, but it's the nature of the code..._dict and > >> > _list would lead to confusion with builtins, if not actual conflict. > [...] > > But I'm not sure what naming convention you used. It seems fairly > arbitrary to me, but whatever it is, it clashes with built-ins, which is > a good sign that you need a different set of names. Since naming the > functions with leading underscores also clashes with the convention that > such functions are private, that's a further sign that you should use a > different naming convention. At the point that you are apologizing for > the convention you use, maybe you should rethink it. > > But of course it's your code, and you're free to use whatever convention > you like. >
The code in question, with the _list and _dict, is used as a part of mini-compiler-like-thingy that generates code from an expression syntax. If you've ever worked with code to implement compilers, interpreters, VMs, etc., you probably know the naming challenges involved. The whole reason I mentioned the wierd names in a "P.S." was to say that I realized it was a little wierd, and it was kind of besides the point. But I have enjoyed your responses. They are slightly pedantic, of course, but in a good way! Makes me think about the code more... If you want more context on the code itself (apart from if/elif discussion and other digressions), I describe it in more detail here: http://showellonprogramming.blogspot.com/2009/11/more-on-python-deep-copy-schema.html -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list