Message201105
| Author |
pitrou |
| Recipients |
barry, ethan.furman, ncoghlan, paul.moore, pitrou, r.david.murray |
| Date |
2013年10月24日.09:19:21 |
| SpamBayes Score |
-1.0 |
| Marked as misclassified |
Yes |
| Message-id |
<1382606361.4.0.935026630203.issue19331@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| In-reply-to |
| Content |
> In cases where inheritance is not encouraged and it is judged to improve
> readability at the point of use, the naming convention for callables
> (lower_case_with_underscores) may be used instead. This is an indication
> that the type is intended primarily for use "as is", rather than through
> inheritance (although subclassing is still permitted).
I don't think this wording is appropriate.
As soon as the "thing" is documented as a *type* (i.e. something you call to get instances that have a specific interface - methods, etc.), then IMO it should follow the naming scheme for classes.
Only when the "thing" is not documented as a type but as a convenience callable (for example a context manager) is it reasonable to follow the naming scheme for functions.
In other words, this has nothing to do with subclassing. |
|