Re: Re[5]: Who is py_cpp

From: David Abrahams (abrahams_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-10-14 19:57:40

----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Evans" <mark.evans_at_[hidden]>

> David,
>
> Yes my proposals were to replace py_cpp.  What I'm saying about
> ExtensionClass is that your use of the term makes for vast
> amounts of confusion with the ZOPE ExtensionClass package.
>
> It's just confusing because the ZOPE stuff uses the term
> "ExtensionClass" which (as far as I know) is not a Standard
> Python Term.  So by rights of first use, let the ZOPE people have
> it to avoid confusion.
>
> From the standpoint of C++ code, anything relating to Python will
> do for names.  How about PythonExtender or something like that.

Ick. I think if we can't do better I'll stick with ExtensionClass.
Descriptiveness overrides name collision in my estimation. There's really no
rule that says different packages of source code can't use the same names.
That's what we have namespaces for ;-)

The name ExtensionClass will soon take a much less prominent place in the
documentation anyway, since most examples will be written in terms of
ClassWrapper. How about this: if and where the name "ExtensionClass" is
introduced I will be sure to include a "Py_cpp Is Not ZOPE" (hmm, maybe I
should call it PINZ) disclaimer.

Thanks,
Dave