2009/3/2 Armin Ronacher <armin.ronacher at active-4.com>: > Hi, > > Georg Brandl <g.brandl <at> gmx.net> writes: > >> We're already quite inconsistent with type name casing in the collections >> module, so it wouldn't matter so much. (Though I'd find symmetry with >> defaultdict pleasing as well.) > We either have the way to be consistent with defaultdict and dict or with > Counter, MutableMapping etc. I think "normal" class names are fine for ABCs, but I brought it up because the other dictionary class in collections had a all lowername. > > I think it's a bit too chaotic already to make a fair decision here. If we > seriously consider a C implementation it would probably be a good idea to call > it `odict`. C-Classes are usually lower cased as far as I can see. I don't implementation language should determine naming. -- Regards, Benjamin
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