On 10/13/2016 11:13 AM, Gregory Szorc wrote:
On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 11:09 AM, Martijn Pieters > wrote:
> Nice refactor. While I haven't looked at the code in detail yet, does
check-code not complain about the use of
On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 11:09 AM, Martijn Pieters wrote:
> > Nice refactor. While I haven't looked at the code in detail yet, does
> check-code not complain about the use of underscore_function_names?
>
> Apparently not! I did run the whole test suite, and ran it again just
> Nice refactor. While I haven't looked at the code in detail yet, does
> check-code not complain about the use of underscore_function_names?
Apparently not! I did run the whole test suite, and ran it again just now.
Nested function names are locals and exempt from the rule it appears.
Should
On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 10:10 AM, Martijn Pieters wrote:
> # HG changeset patch
> # User Martijn Pieters
> # Date 1476346188 -3600
> # Thu Oct 13 09:09:48 2016 +0100
> # Node ID 81d23b9e2b329666db6e342f6bafec54a893687c
> # Parent
# HG changeset patch
# User Martijn Pieters
# Date 1476346188 -3600
# Thu Oct 13 09:09:48 2016 +0100
# Node ID 81d23b9e2b329666db6e342f6bafec54a893687c
# Parent 733fb9f7bc92c694ba6bededaeb93206528c0bcd
py3: refactor token parsing to handle call args properly
The token