On Jan 27, 2008 12:29 AM, Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven <asmodai at in-nomine.org> wrote: > This will be a bikeshed argument until Guido speaks out his > preference/decision I guess. > > But isn't it a more common solution to name the base class just Number and > derive from it by means of using Base.Number or something similar? Looks > cleaner to me rather than all these odd looking pre- or suffixes. (I am not > charmed about ABC in the name at all to be honest, doesn't really give me a > Python feeling.) My preference is still *not* to use a naming convention. I just suggested it as a lesser evil compared to segregating all abstract base classes in an "abc" package ghetto. I really don't see why names like "Number" or "MutableSequence" would need any additional help to make the reader see they are abstract. I note that at least for built-in types there will be the naming convention that concrete implementation classes are all lowercase, like int, float, list, namedtuple, defaultdict, and so on, while the ABCs all have a Capitalized[Words] name: Hashable, Number, Real, MutableMapping, etc. -- --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)
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