On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 09:13:20AM -0700, Shawn Walker wrote: > On 06/10/12 22:59, Edward Pilatowicz wrote: > ... > >i don't think that's realistic. there are multiple situations that i > >can think of (wildcard imports, relative imports, no exception specified > >when catching exceptions) that we generally want to avoid, but there > >will always be special case there will be exceptions. but having these > >errors enabled in pylint will force us to consider which case really > >should be special, and otherwise fix the issue. (banning the temporary > >disabling of pylint messages would be like saying you can't use LINT > >directives in C code. not very realistic.) > > Be that as it may; I despise littering our code with pylint > directives :-( I hope we can find a better alternative. >
i agree the code should not be littered. but define littering. imo, if you've got a 1000+ line file and 2 or 3 pylint directives for a given error, then i wouldn't call that littering, i'd call that having a rule with occasional exceptions. on the other had, if the same file has 10 or 20 pylint directives for a single error, then i'd say we should re-evaluate the benifit of catching that error (either in the gate, in that file, in that object, etc). ed _______________________________________________ pkg-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss
