On Monday 20 October 2003 01:34 am, Delaney, Timothy C (Timothy) wrote: > > From: Alex Martelli [mailto:aleaxit at yahoo.com] > > > > I think we SHOULD have modules corresponding to built-in types, > > if there are important functions connected with those types but not > > appropriate as methods to populate them. Perhaps we could use the > > User*.py modules for the purpose, but making new ones seems > > better. > > Well, we already have a precedent for this - the 'Sets' module. Which is actually "sets" (lowercase leading s). It's a precedent *of sorts*, since sets.Set is not "builtin". array.array is another precedent, unfortunately differing in pluralization as well as in capitalization of the type's name. The name of module "string" is also lowercase and singular, and there's no "string.str" nor "string.string" etc naming the type in the module's namespace. "Queue" does have an uppercase initial, but it's singular -- I think "sets" is the only plural here. So, I dunno; there seems to be little consistency to guide us. Alex
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