Be more consistent with Python variable prefixes #1908
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
badboy
reviewed
Dec 20, 2023
Comment on lines
354
to
355
| Some(suffix) => format!("UniffiRustBuffer{suffix}"), | ||
| None => "UniffiRustBuffer".to_string(), |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The underscores were actually added in #1599
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Doh!
I just updated the PR to always use the underscores. PEP 8 seems to say we don't need them if we use __all__, but the autocomplete example from 1599 is pretty convincing to me.
I also updated the names for a few more functions. _rust_call is now _uniffi_rust_call
bendk
force-pushed
the
python-variable-prefixes
branch
from
5671548
to
b4e8237
Compare
|
I also added a README for the templates that goes over naming. |
bendk
force-pushed
the
python-variable-prefixes
branch
from
b4e8237
to
a5647f4
Compare
Always use `_uniffi`, `_Uniffi`, or `_UNIFFI` for module-level names. The leading underscore is to indicate private variables and makes it so the names don't appear in autocomplete. I think this is the most Pythonic naming style. Use `_uniffi` rather than simply `_` to avoid name collisions. I think the general contract with our users should be that we own the `uniffi` prefix. If they want to name something `UniffiFoo`, then they take the risk of a name collision.
bendk
force-pushed
the
python-variable-prefixes
branch
from
a5647f4
to
59c17be
Compare
|
I've been trying to clean up my old branches and finally got around to this one. There's not that much left in this PR, but I think would still be good to merge. WDYT? |
mhammond
approved these changes
May 24, 2024
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Always use
uniffi,Uniffi, orUNIFFIfor module-level names. Add a leading underscore for private class members. I think this is the most Pythonic naming style. Because we define__all__for modules, there's no chance that users will accidentally import the UniFFI items withfrom module import *Before there were lots of leading underscores, but I don't see the point and it doesn't feel Pythonic to me.
I think the general contract with our users should be that we own the
uniffiprefix. If they want to name somethingUniffiFoo, then they take the risk of a name collision.This is my personal take on the matter, but I'm fine with any naming scheme. I just think we should be consistent about it.