[Python-Dev] Further PEP 8 compliance issues in threading and multiprocessing (original) (raw)

Tony Nelson tonynelson at georgeanelson.com
Tue Sep 2 03:36:17 CEST 2008

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/>

More information about the Python-Dev mailing list