Double underscores -- ugly?

[Bruno Desthuilliers]

Re: Double underscores -- ugly?

Jason a écrit :
(snip)

Hmm. I must be the only person who doesn't think the double
underscores are ugly.

As far as I'm concerned, I just don't care if they are "ugly" or not -
FWIW, I never ever think of them in terms of "beauty" or "ugliness".

What I do care about is that they simply and clearly convey a special
meaning (just like the _single_leading _underscore names), and make sure
you won't accidentaly override such a name.

[Bruno Desthuilliers]

Re: Double underscores -- ugly?

benhoyt a écrit :
(snip)

Then again, what's stopping us just using a single leading underscore?
Nobody calls their own private methods _init or _add

I do.

[cokofreedom@gmail.com]

Re: Double underscores -- ugly?

So people's problem with __word__ is that it is not very readable?

How so, it stands out on page, it clearly is different from other
objects and doesn't abuse other symbols that generally have a meaning
based on their use.

I haven't seen a single alternative that really stands out as much as
__word__ does.

[Ben Finney]

Re: Double underscores -- ugly?

cokofreedom@gma il.com writes:

So people's problem with __word__ is that it is not very readable?

No, the complaint seems to be that it's "ugly".

--
\ "[T]he speed of response of the internet will re-introduce us |
`\ to that from which our political systems have separated us for |
_o__) so long, the consequences of our own actions." -- Douglas Adams |
Ben Finney

[Steven D'Aprano]

Re: Double underscores -- ugly?

On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 03:12:39 -0800, cokofreedom wrote:

So people's problem with __word__ is that it is not very readable?
>
How so, it stands out on page, it clearly is different from other
objects and doesn't abuse other symbols that generally have a meaning
based on their use.
>
I haven't seen a single alternative that really stands out as much as
__word__ does.

My only two gripes about double underscore names are that:

(1) My news reader interprets _X_ as "underline X", which leads to ugly
display. I could turn that feature off, but that would mean losing *X*
"bold X", which I like.

(2) Two underscores __ is insufficiently visually different from a single
underscore _. Choosing a good font reduces the problem, but doesn't make
it go away.

However, these are minor gripes. On a scale of 0 to -9, where 0 is "it
doesn't upset me or please me at all" and -9 is "I'd rather die than live
with this one more minute", these gripes are both about a -2, and far out-
weighed by the advantages. Taking the advantages and the disadvantages
both into account, I give it a total score of about +4.



--
Steven

[castironpi@gmail.com]

Re: Replacing 'if __name__ == __main__' with decorator (was: Doubleunderscor es -- ugly?)

@mainmethod

def main(...)
>
and like this:
>
@mainmethod(par ser=myparser)
def main(...)
>
then you cannot use that decorator for a function that expects or
allows a function as its first argument? Because how and

If it's called with only one non-keyword parameter, then the language
might have done it; if not, guaranteed not. (More succintly, if it's
not, the language didn't.)

So, to get:

@mainmethod
def main(...)

you'll have to check the parameter counts, and you can never invoke
with just one callable parameter, pretty easy; bulky; your choice
between:

@mainmethod()
def main(...)

Note: 'Non-keyword' -and- callable!