François Pinard wrote: > I know that `string' and `socket' exist, despite `string' is evanescent, > but they surely forced users at choosing other identifiers where `string' > and `socket' would have been perfect. It is very good news that, now > in Python 2.3, `string' is unneeded most of times. Let us not repeat > previous mistakes, or even nail them further by trying to be compatible > with them. I would suggest that bare type names are rarely appropriate for use a variable names, except in toy examples. If I'm reading someone else's code, and they create a string or a socket, I want to know what it is _for_, rather than the mere fact this it is a string or a socket. If the type is all that is important, then prepending some simple word such as 'a_string' or 'the_string' or 'my_string' makes it clear to the maintainer that the object doesn't really have any significant semantic meaning beyond its type. Regards, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | Brisbane, Australia Email: ncoghlan at email.com | Mobile: +61 409 573 268
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