Re: [Maya-Python] pep 8 nameing convention for packages and modules

> > I think "Build" is a strange name for a class @justin: I agree 100%, taking my word back, Builder is anyday a better name that Build for a class, I think I was focussing more on the package naming conventions as whole not just the class. And here's the more precise rule - "Class names

Re: [Maya-Python] pep 8 nameing convention for packages and modules

I think "Build" is a strange name for a class though, since it implies an action such as something a function should do. But calling a class means calling its contructor. Would a more appropriate name be "Builder" since a class would be a collection of logic that can be used to build a Skeleton?

Re: [Maya-Python] pep 8 nameing convention for packages and modules

> > But a class named Skeleton is more descriptive than Build. Of ourse it is, but only if you do not have a namespace context. I totally agree with Yury here. Your namespace already qualifies what Build class is, so you do not have to worry about the context. Always remeber - Namespaces are

Re: [Maya-Python] pep 8 nameing convention for packages and modules

hmmm, interesting. But a class named Skeleton is more descriptive than Build. I might be overthinking all that, but I am curious about it. El sábado, 24 de septiembre de 2016, 19:47:28 (UTC+1), ynedelin escribió: > > You could use Build instead of Skeleton. > This would make sense since you

Re: [Maya-Python] pep 8 nameing convention for packages and modules

You could use Build instead of Skeleton. This would make sense since you already have skeleton in the rbskeleton, then you will have rbs.Build() It would also work well with other functions like rbs.Destroy() On Sep 24, 2016 12:20 PM, "Rudi Hammad" wrote: > Hi, > so I guess