Antoine Pitrou wrote: > I don't see a problem for trivial functional wrappers to classes to be > capitalized like classes. The problem is that the capitalization makes you think it's a class, suggesting you can do things with it that you actually can't, e.g. subclassing. I can't think of any reason to do this. If you don't want to promise that something is a class, what possible reason is there for naming it like one? I can see a reason for doing the opposite, though: if something happens to be a class, but you don't want to promise that, you could expose it under a lower-case name, that can be replaced with a factory function later. In this case, the thing to decide is whether Event will always be a direct class instantiation. If so, rename _Event to Event and expose it directly. If not, rename Event to event. -- Greg
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