[Python-Dev] configparser: should optionxform be idempotent? (original) (raw)

Eric V. Smith eric at trueblade.com
Fri Mar 8 03:26:56 EST 2019

On Mar 8, 2019, at 12:12 AM, Steven D'Aprano <steve at pearwood.info> wrote:

On Fri, Mar 08, 2019 at 12:56:13PM +1300, Greg Ewing wrote:

In any case, the word is easy enough to avoid in this case. I don't think we should avoid using standard terminology even if we can. Knowledge of standard terminology is useful, and we don't generally make a practice of talking about (e.g.) "simultaneously running subtasks" when we can say "threads" instead. You are happy to use the jargon terms "function" and "canonical form" without explanation, which I think proves that one person's jargon is another's obvious, clear, precise technical terminology. We could say something like: "The optionxform function transforms option names to a canonical form. If the name is already in canonical form, it should be returned unchanged." How about: "The optionxform function transforms option names to a canonical form. This should be an idempotent function: if the name is already in canonical form, it should be returned unchanged."

I’d prefer something less passive than “it should remain unchanged” (as my high school English teacher would say: “by whom?”). Something like “If optionxform is called on a name that is already in canonical form, then it should return that name unchanged”. Then add something like “That is, optionxform should be idempotent”.

Eric

requires six extra words, but it uses the correct technical term which will be familiar to some proportion of users, while also explaining the term for those who aren't familiar with it. We all win! -- Steven

Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev at python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/eric%2Ba-python-dev%40trueblade.com

More information about the Python-Dev mailing list