> > > There's a lot of empirical evidence that %(name)s is quite error > > > prone. > > > > Perhaps an unadorned %(name) should default to %(name)s? Ambiguous, hence even more error-prone. > Or: > - get pychecker2 working (the one that does not need to import modules > that it checks, I *think* that that is one of the pychecker2 features) > - get PyChecker in the core > - provide a python flag to load the pychecker import hook to check your > code when running it (say, '-w') > - have PyChecker warn about "%(name)"-sans-formatting-character > instances in strings (if it does not already). I'd rather have a notation that's less error-prone than a better way to check for errors. (Not that PyChecker 2 isn't a great idea. :-) --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4