Josiah Carlson wrote:
The Python standard library is written at a higher level of abstraction
than a Python application; therefore, its names are generally shorter:
it pre-empts (as it should) a great number of very concise
names. Making the names in an application more concrete (which
usually involves more length) is a Good Thing.Proper application development should involve reusable parts, or the
development of a "library" of classes, objects, functions, and modules,
whose primary use is the application being developed, but who have a
secondary (but very important) role to be potentially re-used in other
applications/libraries. As previously stated by core developers _of_
Python, the modern sections (that which has been most recently added) of
the Python standard library should be considered the seminal work on
what a Python library module should look like.So I would disagree.
Well then, I guess we will just have to agree to disagree, since
I am as unconvinced by your arguments as you are by mine. And
I meta-disagree on your interpretation of what the "core developers
_of_ Python" have stated and its applicability to this case.
Perhaps one of them could chime in if they are on the list?
Cheers,
Steve
ยทยทยท
Stephen Waterbury <golux@comcast.net> wrote: