PEP 318: Can't we all just get along?

[Colin J. Williams]

Roy Smith wrote:
> Anthony Baxter wrote:
> 
>>>Look, name-mangling is horrid, and I don't think anyone's defending it. But
>>>at the same time, "name mangling is there" is not an argument for extending
>>>the horror to a whole new level. 
> 
> 
> Paul Morrow <pm_mon at yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
>>I disagree.  It's an effective name-hiding technique.  Simple + 
>>Effective = Good.
> 
> 
> I disagree with your disagreement :-)
> 
> I find a mix of text and puctuation difficult to read.  Human brains 
> don't read letters, they read whole words.  That's why, for example, 
> it's so easy to make a typo and not notice it.  I find "word.word" easy 
> to parse, but "word.__word" much more difficult.  

I agree, but see this as similar to the naming convention:
            long_symbolic_representation     at first glance,
                                             this looks like
                                             three names
why not:
            longSymbolicRepresentation?      this makes the oneness
                                             clearer

Returning to the subject line - When will the final decision be handed
down?

My own preferences are: (1) transform or transformer not decorator
                         (2) the transforms should follow the thing 
being
                             transformed. i.e. after the script has
                             declared the name.
                         (3) a list of transforms.
                         (4) the list should have one entry per line,
                             to make reading easier.

Colin W.
I don't know if it's
> the switching back and forth between letters and symbols, or the 
> juxtaposition of the two symbols down on the baseline (i.e. ".__") that 
> makes it hard to read.
> 
> This is true of the __name__ convention for internal names too, but 
> somehow I don't find that as bad.  Maybe because it's symmetric?  Maybe 
> because my brain recognizes the whole __name__ as a unit, with the 
> "name" part of it being what I really recognize?
> 
> Even worse is when mix them.  Stuff like "__myPrivateFunc.__name__" is 
> total gibberish to me.
> 
> Oh my god, I just realized (Ob decorator comment here) that if we start 
> having people write private decorators, we'll have things like:
> 
> @__decorator
> 
> which really makes me barf.