Erik <pyt...@lucidity.plus.com> writes: > On 05/03/16 00:23, Simon Ward wrote: > > Style guides are always going to be considered incorrect by some > > people, but they should aim more for consistency (the hobgoblin that > > may be), which is what makes code easier to grok. > > So you're saying that it doesn't matter if something is good or bad, > as long as it's consistently so?
That's not my reading of the above. “X more than Y” does not dismiss the importance of Y. > Am I not allowed to suggest that the style guide is wrong in what it > suggests? Certainly you are allowed. You should not expect that suggestion to be compelling unless it is accompanied by *factual*, rather than emotive, argument. If the advantage is small, you need to accept that the small advantage will be weighed against the high cost of a long period of inconsistency with existing, currently-conformant, code. That may be enough to rule out the option you are suggesting, because we're not starting from a blank slate of no existing code. You also need to accept that many choices in a good style guide *will* be on the basis of choosing among many good options, and thereby exclude a number of good options from that guide. It doesn't make those options un-good, it just means that conforming to the style guide excludes those options. -- \ “For a sentimentalist is simply one who desires to have the | `\ luxury of an emotion without paying for it.” —Oscar Wilde, _De | _o__) Profundis_, 1897 | Ben Finney -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list