No sooner do I suggest that something is impossible: Michael Chermside writes: > Unfortunately, there is a flaw in your methodology, and I > can't think of a reasonable way to correct for it. Then someone here goes and DOES it: Edward Loper writes: > I ran a similar experiment, but counted the number of *modules* that > define each type of function (since presumably most modules are > internally consistent). Good idea... I'd been considering and rejecting various dictionary based approaches for identifying multi-word identifiers, but your solution is better. > Total modules defining functions: 985 > under_score+lowercase : 44% > mixedCase+lowercase : 22% > lowercase only : 16% > InitialCaps : 10% > mixedCase only : 2% > under_score only : 2% > > So underscore is most common; but mixedCase has a definite presence. [...] > p.s., I'm definitely +1 on making a stronger statement in the style > guide. Consistency is good. Yep, +1 from me too. And if we strengthen the statement in PEP 8, then all NEW library code will be consistant (beware the wrath of the PEP 8 Police!). More importantly, people engaged in green-field Python projects will be much more likely to follow the practice. To make a good start, I hereby state my intention to stop using mixedCase and switch to under_scores instead. -- Michael Chermside
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4