[Python-Dev] pep8ity __future__

[Guido van Rossum]

I don't see it the same way; this is a terribly unimportant API, so
let's not mess with it. threading.py is worth fixing (a) because it's
so popular, and (b) because some folks insisted that the new
multiprocessing module have an API that is as similar as possible to
threading. IOW The general moratorium on pep8ifying remains; we made a
specific exception for threading.py for very specific reasons.

--Guido

On Sat, Jun 7, 2008 at 2:10 PM, Armin Ronacher
<armin.ronacher at active-4.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> That's just a flaming-sword thread but I want to mention it nonetheless :-)
>
> Basically I propose getting rid of __future__._Feature.getMandatoryRelease()
> in favour of __future__._Feature.mandatory.  That's backwards compatibile
> and much more pythonic.  Getters/Setters are considered unpythonic and the
> getting rid of all that Java-like naming sounds like a good idea to me :)
>
> If threading/processing gets a pep8ified API with 2.6, why not __future__?
>
> Proposed patch: http://paste.pocoo.org/show/64512/
>
>
> Regards,
> Armin
>
> _______________________________________________
> Python-Dev mailing list
> Python-Dev at python.org
> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
> Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/guido%40python.org
>



-- 
--Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)