RetroSearch Browse

Tue Sep 2 03:36:17 CEST 2008 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2008-September/082129.html

At 1:04 PM +1200 9/2/08, Greg Ewing wrote:
>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.

Or that it returns a new object of that kind.

>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?
 ...

Lower-case names return something about an object.  Capitalized names
return a new object of the named type (more or less), either via a Class
constructor or a Factory object.  That's /a/ reason, anyway.

I suppose the question is what a capitalized name promises.  If it means
only "Class", then how should "Returns a new object", either from a Class
or a Factory, be shown?  Perhaps a new convention is needed for Factories?
-- 
____________________________________________________________________
TonyN.:'                       <mailto:tonynelson at georgeanelson.com>
      '                              <http://www.georgeanelson.com/>

Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2008-September/082129.html below:

[Python-Dev] Further PEP 8 compliance issues in threading and multiprocessing