Andre Alexander Bell wrote: > On 07/11/2010 10:30 AM, rantingrick wrote:
>>> So, it is not a disadvantage that the functions you listed above are >>> named in this way. In the contrary, it is an advantage, as it keeps >>> newcomers from using stupid variable names. >> "int" for an Integer is stupid? >> "list" for a List is stupid? >> "str" for a String is stupid? >> >> What am i missing? > > You are missing (from PEP 8): > > --- 8< --- 8< --- > Class Names > > Almost without exception, class names use the CapWords convention. > Classes for internal use have a leading underscore in addition. > > --- 8< --- 8< --- > > You may want to think of list, int, str, object, ... as classes that > don't follow this advice with their class name. > > But besides that, shouldn't a variable name reflect it's purpose instead > of it's type? E.g. hm, well sometimes I do write generic functions, that do something with a list or a string or an int. However a simple way around this is to use following naming style. to replace def process_list(list): dostuff_with(list) with def process_list(alist): dostuff_with(alist) or with def process_list(a_list): dostuff_with(a_list) I must admit, that I have still problems to not use the variables range or id -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list