Tony Nelson wrote:
> 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?
Any function can always return a new object (e.g. operator.add(list1,
list2), so I don't think we need a special naming convention to
explicitly flag factory functions.
The question I am raising is whether or not aberrations in the other
direction (factory functions that are named like a class, incorrectly
implying they can be used as a base class or as part of isinstance() or
issubclass() checks) are enough of a concern to add additional aliases
to the threading API, and to further modify the multiprocessing API this
close to RC1.
(Issue 3352 actually provides a complete list of the names that are
potentially at issue for both multiprocessing and threading - note that
Ben, with my concurrence, has closed that issue on the assumption that
the current naming scheme for these factory functions is acceptable).
Cheers,
Nick.
--
Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan at gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia
---------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.boredomandlaziness.org
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