Alex Martelli aleaxit at yahoo.com
Mon Oct 20 03:53:39 EDT 2003

• Previous message: copysort patch, was RE: [Python-Dev] inline sort option
• Next message: [Python-Dev] SRE recursion removed
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

---

On Monday 20 October 2003 01:34 am, Delaney, Timothy C (Timothy) wrote:
> > From: Alex Martelli [mailto:aleaxit at yahoo.com]
> >
> > I think we SHOULD have modules corresponding to built-in types,
> > if there are important functions connected with those types but not
> > appropriate as methods to populate them.  Perhaps we could use the
> > User*.py modules for the purpose, but making new ones seems
> > better.
>
> Well, we already have a precedent for this - the 'Sets' module.

Which is actually "sets" (lowercase leading s).

It's a precedent *of sorts*, since sets.Set is not "builtin".  array.array
is another precedent, unfortunately differing in pluralization as well as in
capitalization of the type's name.  The name of module "string" is also
lowercase and singular, and there's no "string.str" nor "string.string" etc
naming the type in the module's namespace.  "Queue" does have an
uppercase initial, but it's singular -- I think "sets" is the only plural
here.

So, I dunno; there seems to be little consistency to guide us.


Alex

---

• Previous message: copysort patch, was RE: [Python-Dev] inline sort option
• Next message: [Python-Dev] SRE recursion removed
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

---

More information about the Python-Dev mailing list