Re: RFC: Guide for maintaining software in the Zope repository

On 8/24/07, Stephan Richter <[email protected]> wrote:
> That's not harsh. That's the point of a coding style. :-) The long-term
> benefits are greater.

Agreed!

> But if you prefer consistency, then we really should be staying with the Zope
> 3 style guide,

This, of course, all depends on the answer to the question:
Consistency with what?  Zope 3 history?  The larger Python community?
(Don't think the world agrees on PEP 8...)

> which is effectively PEP 8 with camel case methods, functions
> and attributes. Also, the Zope 3 style guide does more than PEP 8 as it
> discusses other files and package structure as well. So, maybe we should
> write another official ZF document with our style guide capturing the result
> of this discussion.

Maybe.

> That said, I guess I could retrieve from "one style for a namespace" in the
> interest of keeping z3c open for all to contribute to. But I certainly would
> not switch to PEP8; we worked too hard to make the original Zope 3 tree Zope

What bugs me most is that changing the style used keeps coming up;
it's silly to keep trying to change it.  *That* is what defeats the
benefits of having one to start with.

I don't really care whether the style is the "classic" Zope 3 style or
PEP 8, as long as it never changes.


  -Fred

-- 
Fred L. Drake, Jr.    <fdrake at gmail.com>
"Chaos is the score upon which reality is written." --Henry Miller