On Wed, 2005-12-14 at 20:09 -0600, Ian Bicking wrote: > I think it's reasonable to loosen the > phrasing a bit -- it's nearly always better to stay consistent with a > package than follow PEP 8 on this point. I agree, but actually I think there's a wider point to be made. The worst of all possible worlds is a module that is internally inconsistent about any of the guidelines. But I think the text in the introduction makes this point well enough. There should be one clear recommendation for new code, and since we've had this for four years now, I think the underline_words recommendation should stand. -Barry -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 307 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part Url : http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20051215/cb1ab47b/attachment.pgp
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