I don't feel strongly enough about it to devise some work around for the 
naming checks so PKCS1 is acceptable to me.


On 24 February 2014 22:07:14 Paul Kehrer <notifications@github.com> wrote:

> > +#
> > +# Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software
> > +# distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS,
> > +# WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or
> > +# implied.
> > +# See the License for the specific language governing permissions and
> > +# limitations under the License.
> > +
> > +from __future__ import absolute_import, division, print_function
> > +
> > +from cryptography import utils
> > +from cryptography.hazmat.primitives import interfaces
> > +
> > +
> > +@utils.register_interface(interfaces.AsymmetricPadding)
> > +class PKCS1(object):
>
> I think "PKCS1" is unambiguous in context without being annoying to type, 
> so I'd vote against changing this. (Also if we land #683 `PKCS1_v1_5` would 
> error on flake8 checks)
>
> ---
> Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
> https://github.com/pyca/cryptography/pull/673/files#r10013298