| msg305509 - (view) |
Author: Brett Cannon (brett.cannon) *  |
Date: 2017-11-03 20:57 |
| The term "dunder" is used out in the community regularly, but if you have never been exposed to it before it can seem a little odd without context. |
|
|
| msg305510 - (view) |
Author: Barry A. Warsaw (barry) * |
Date: 2017-11-03 20:59 |
| -1 until we have something we can call a "mifflin". (Kidding of course!) |
|
|
| msg305512 - (view) |
Author: Mariatta (Mariatta) * |
Date: 2017-11-03 21:02 |
| > until we have something we can call a "mifflin". Name of next GitHub bot? :P |
|
|
| msg305513 - (view) |
Author: Mariatta (Mariatta) * |
Date: 2017-11-03 21:03 |
| Anyway, +1 to adding dunder to glossary. |
|
|
| msg305542 - (view) |
Author: Serhiy Storchaka (serhiy.storchaka) * |
Date: 2017-11-04 08:41 |
| I think it shouldn't be added as a separate entry, but just mentioned in [1] and [2], and added to the index. [1] https://docs.python.org/3/glossary.html#term-special-method [2] https://docs.python.org/3/reference/datamodel.html#specialnames |
|
|
| msg305569 - (view) |
Author: Raymond Hettinger (rhettinger) * |
Date: 2017-11-04 21:52 |
| I would rather not clutter the glossary with this sort of entry. Already, it has clutter that should probably be removed so that once again it becomes a worthwhile read rather than turning into a dictionary of random terms (such as meta-path-finder, module spec, and regular-package). Instead, there should probably be a FAQ entry or wiki entry on the ever evolving spoken cultural terminology: dunder --> double underscore stir --> __str__ repper --> __repr__ rest --> .rst files or representational-state-transfer sequel -> sql gwid -> globally unique indentifier inker and decker -> incref and decef (larry hastings pronunciation) |
|
|
| msg305786 - (view) |
Author: Mariatta (Mariatta) * |
Date: 2017-11-07 17:28 |
| Thanks Raymond. +1 for adding the above list. I don't think FAQ is the right place either, I prefer we don't have to add the entries in the form of questions & answers. |
|
|
| msg305791 - (view) |
Author: Antoine Pitrou (pitrou) * |
Date: 2017-11-07 20:18 |
| Agreed with Raymond that Python folk terminology should not go into the glossary. I don't think I ever say "dunder" myself. |
|
|
| msg305792 - (view) |
Author: Serhiy Storchaka (serhiy.storchaka) * |
Date: 2017-11-07 20:56 |
| I never seen terms like "stir" or "inker", but the term "dunder" is used pretty widely. The glossary already contains abbreviations and Python folk terminology like EAFP and BDFL. |
|
|
| msg305946 - (view) |
Author: Raymond Hettinger (rhettinger) * |
Date: 2017-11-09 09:00 |
| Recommend closing this and leaving it for StackOverflow. I really don't want to further garbage-up the glossary. |
|
|
| msg307002 - (view) |
Author: Serhiy Storchaka (serhiy.storchaka) * |
Date: 2017-11-26 11:50 |
| The term "dunder" is used in PEPs: PEP 8, PEP 408, PEP 435, PEP 505, PEP 520, PEP 526, and in the enum module documentation. |
|
|
| msg311797 - (view) |
Author: Stéphane Wirtel (matrixise) * |
Date: 2018-02-07 16:18 |
| Just added the term in the glossary If you want to review this PR, thank you |
|
|
| msg311798 - (view) |
Author: R. David Murray (r.david.murray) * |
Date: 2018-02-07 17:29 |
| EAFP and BDFL are not python folk terminology (the former never was, the latter may have originated with us but it has widespread use). They are also acronyms. 'dunder' is the phonetic spelling of a way of pronouncing punctuation. Raymond's examples of 'stir' and 'repper' are similar: phonetic spellings of ways of pronouncing something that isn't a word. It seems to me that such phonetic spellings do no belong in the glossary. The counter argument is that unlike the other two 'dunder' does appear *occasionally* in text...but the only place it appears in our documentation (that I can find via grep) is in the enum docs, and there it should be replaced by the correct term "special methods", especially since it there it is spelled "__dunder__". For 'stir' and 'repper' the text spelling is __str__/str and __repr__/repr, for 'dunder XXX' the correct text spelling is the special method name, and for the "dunder method" the correct spelling (and I would argue the correct pronunciation :) is "special method". That is, 'dunder' is mostly used in speech, not text. It is not a "word" in the sense that the rest of the glossary entries are. So, I vote with Raymond and others that this term does *not* belong in our glossary. I recommend closing this issue as rejected. |
|
|
| msg311800 - (view) |
Author: Stéphane Wirtel (matrixise) * |
Date: 2018-02-07 20:07 |
| David, I have no objection to closing this issue and I totally agree with your comment. |
|
|