On 22 February 2018 at 13:03, Dan Stromberg <drsalists at gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 2:19 PM, Barry Warsaw <barry at python.org> wrote: >> On Feb 21, 2018, at 13:22, Guido van Rossum <guido at python.org> wrote: >>> >>> I'm willing to reconsider if there's a good enough tool. Ditto for C code (or do we already do it for C?). >> >> For Python code, flake8 --possibly with our own custom plugins— is the way to go. > > Is flake8 that much better than pylint, that pylint wouldn't even be discussed? > > pylint does warn about some relatively unimportant things out of the > box, but it can be configured to ignore (almost?) everything it > checks. "pylint -E" is my own preferred IDE-level checker (since it's pretty good about reserving the "Error" category for things that almost certainly indicate bugs), but all of these tools share a common problem when applied to CPython: we routinely break them :) Part of that is permanent breakage in the test suite where we deliberately test the compiler and interpreter's reaction to invalid code, while the other part is transient breakage when we introduce new syntax and other language level constructs. Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan at gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia
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