On Mon, Nov 13, 2017, 13:59 Paul Moore, <p.f.mo...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 13 November 2017 at 20:43, MRAB <pyt...@mrabarnett.plus.com> wrote: > > On 2017-11-13 19:10, Barry Warsaw wrote: > >> The specifics aren't as important as the general use case: multiple > >> tools competing for the same valuable real-estate. > >> > >> I have no ideas how to improve the situation, and of course any solution > >> would involve some coordination between all of these tools, but it's > >> beginning to feel like a losing battle. Is there a better way? > >> > > I suppose that you could have suggest to them that they follow a > convention > > such as: > > > > 1. There can be multiple pragmas in a comment, separated by semicolons: > if > > you don't recognise it, skip past the semicolon. > > > > 2. A pragma can be prefixed with the name of the tool, e.g. "# > flake8.noqa: > > F401": if there's a prefix, but it's not yours, skip past the semicolon. > > An informational PEP defining a common convention for pragma-style > comments could standardise things. I'd suggest starting a discussion > (somewhere?) with the development teams for the relevant projects > (flake8, mypy, coverage...) with the intention of developing such a > PEP that they could all support. >
And possibly the easiest way to reach them is on the pyqa-dev mailing list. -brett > Paul > _______________________________________________ > Python-ideas mailing list > Python-ideas@python.org > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas > Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/ >
_______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list Python-ideas@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
