Naming convention for skeleton.py: rename or leave as-is?

[sgbaird]

It's not entirely clear to me: is the intention for the user to rename skeleton.py to something more consistent with the project or leave it named skeleton.py? I would assume the former followed by updating any references to the skeleton module being renamed as well.

For example, I took after some of the structure of UMAP's repo in several of mine, where if the package name / directory is called mat_discover then I make a module called mat_discover_.py:

Alternatively I could call it core.py for example.

[FlorianWilhelm]

Hi @sgbaird, the skeleton.py file can be safely removed as stated in the docstring but could also be renamed to whatever you want depending on your needs. I typically rename it to cli.py for command-line-interface but I am not sure this really is a convention.

Does this answer your question? Do you have a suggestion what we could add to the docstring so that this becomes clearer?

[sgbaird]

It was pretty clear to me that skeleton.py could be safely removed. Yes - definitely answers my question. Perhaps "skeleton.py can be renamed as desired. For example, cli.py, core.py, or <my_module_name>.py (replacing <my_module_name> with the name of your module)." or I think your wording would work just fine:
"skeleton.py can be left as-is or renamed to whatever you want depending on your needs."

Thank you for clarifying!

[FlorianWilhelm]

Cool, how about:

Note:
    This skeleton file can be renamed depending on your needs or safely removed if not needed.

If you want to provide a PR we appreciate it 🙂 Otherwise, I'll change this after my vacation.

[abravalheri]

I was thinking about cutting a release soon, so I have created #641.