On 12/3/2017 9:07 PM, Eric V. Smith wrote: > On 12/3/2017 8:31 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote: >> On Sun, Dec 3, 2017 at 1:28 PM, Eric V. Smith <eric at trueblade.com >> <mailto:eric at trueblade.com>> wrote: >> >> On 12/3/2017 3:33 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote: > > >> >> Thanks. I have to ask: why don't "asdict" and "astuple" respect >> PEP 8 >> naming? >> >> >> I guess it depends if you think the underscore is needed to improve >> readability. "Function names should be lowercase, with words >> separated by underscores as necessary to improve readability." >> >> I don't feel strongly enough about it to change it, but part of that >> is because I'm burned out on the PEP, so I might not be a good one >> to judge at this point. I guess if I clear my head and I were doing >> it from scratch again I'd make them as_dict and as_tuple, so maybe I >> should brush aside inertia and make the change. >> >> >> The Python stdlib is incredibly inconsistent where it comes to >> inserting underscores. I think in this case it matches >> `namedtuple._asdict()` and that's good enough for me. > > It also matches `attrs.asdict()`, which is what originally inspired it. After a brief discussion at https://github.com/ericvsmith/dataclasses/issues/110, the decision is to leave the function names as-is, without underscores, to be consistent with namedtuples and attrs. I'll add a note in the PEP's discussion section. Eric.
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