, to Test Driven Development (TDD).
If you do TDD, you won't miss compile-time checking much. In fact, the extra
kruft that manifest typing requires is an annoying burden when doing TDD, so
Python is a breath of fresh air in this regard.
What test should one implement to catch that kind
the compiler would otherwise find. I'm referring, of
course, to Test Driven Development (TDD).
If you do TDD, you won't miss compile-time checking much. In fact, the extra
kruft that manifest typing requires is an annoying burden when doing TDD, so
Python is a breath of fresh air
find. I'm referring,
of course, to Test Driven Development (TDD).
If you do TDD, you won't miss compile-time checking much. In fact, the
extra kruft that manifest typing requires is an annoying burden when
doing TDD, so Python is a breath of fresh air in this regard.
What test should one
Hi,
If you find something like that, please report it to the bug tracker of
SPE with an easy example. Also mention that PyChecker is slow, I might
have another look at it.
Probably I need to update the version, as SPE ships with the 0.8.13
version. I don't think it's possible to get it already
miss compile-time checking much. In fact, the extra
kruft that manifest typing requires is an annoying burden when doing TDD, so
Python is a breath of fresh air in this regard.
On 10 Aug 2005 08:53:15 -0700, Qopit [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi there,
I'm pretty new to Python and am trying to figure
Just as a note... Pylint is integrated within pydev (http://pydev.sf.net)
Cheers,
Fabio
Qopit wrote:
Why not just find out, by trying to compile it? :-)
This will likely certify me as a python newbie, but... how do you mean?
How do you compile a .py file?
If you mean to .pyc by doing
On 10 Aug 2005 18:32:54 -0700, Qopit [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
if debug: print v=%s % (v,)
Not that important, but I assume the first one was supposed to be:
if debug: print v=, s
right?
No, I'm trying to print (v) not (s).
--
Email: zen19725 at zen dot co dot uk
--
On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 02:35:40 GMT, Bengt Richter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 20:39:03 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (phil hunt) wrote:
[...]
I've not personally had problems with the wrong number of argumnets
to a function call -- they get caught at run-time and are easy
enough to
In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Qopit wrote:
I'm
a big fan of Python's ability to easily rebind everything in sight, but
this particular usage seems like a strange abuse I wouldn't expect a
code-checker to be able to figure out. I'll just avoid writing
confusing code like that... it's not only
Hi there,
I'm pretty new to Python and am trying to figure out how to get will
this code compile?-like code checking. To me this is a pretty basic
language/environment requirement, especially when working with large
projects. It is *much* better to catch errors at compile-time rather
than at
Qopit wrote:
[snip]
My questions are:
- Am I missing something with my tester example?
- Are there other code-checking options other than PyChecker?
Try pylint
--
Benjamin Niemann
Email: pink at odahoda dot de
WWW: http://www.odahoda.de/
--
On 10 Aug 2005 08:53:15 -0700
Qopit wrote:
def tester(a,b,c):
print bogus test function,a,b,c
tester(1,2,3) #this runs fine
tester(1,2)#this obviously causes a run-time TypeError exception
/tmp% cat a.py
def tester(a,b,c):
print bogus test function,a,b,c
tester(1,2,3) #this runs
Why not just find out, by trying to compile it? :-)
This will likely certify me as a python newbie, but... how do you mean?
How do you compile a .py file?
If you mean to .pyc by doing an import on it, that may work fine for
the simple example I typed up earlier, but that is easy to bypass by
How embarassing... thanks, jk. I grabbed a copy of pychecker v0.8.14
directly (not the one in SPE) and it catches it exactly as you showed.
Now I wonder why the SPE one doesn't catch it (and why it is sooo
comparatively slow)!
Now I'm running into another snag when checking some other code I
In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Qopit wrote:
Hi there,
I'm pretty new to Python and am trying to figure out how to get will
this code compile?-like code checking. To me this is a pretty basic
language/environment requirement, especially when working with large
projects. It is *much* better to
In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Qopit wrote:
Now I'm running into another snag when checking some other code I have.
Pychecker gets hung up on raw_input... it actually executes code
rather than just checking it, it seems. For example, the snippet below
hangs pychecker::
#---
while 1:
x =
def tester(a, b, c):
global tester
print bogus test function, a, b, c
def tester(a, b):
print other test function, a, b
tester(1, 2, 3) # This runs fine.
tester(1, 2)# This too.
Interesting example. In that case, pychecker does spit out a warning
since it
if __name__ == '__main__':
Yep - that does it... should have thought of that. Thanks.
This works fine for pychecker with no hangage:
#---
if __name__ == __main__:
while 1:
x = raw_input(meh:)
#---
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
if debug: print v=%s % (v,)
Not that important, but I assume the first one was supposed to be:
if debug: print v=, s
right?
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On 2005-08-11, Qopit [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
if debug: print v=%s % (v,)
Not that important, but I assume the first one was supposed to be:
if debug: print v=, s
right?
http://docs.python.org/tut/node9.html#SECTION00910
--
Grant Edwards grante
On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 20:39:03 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (phil hunt) wrote:
[...]
I've not personally had problems with the wrong number of argumnets
to a function call -- they get caught at run-time and are easy
enough to fix -- but I do sometimes get errors because a varialbe is
the wrong time,
21 matches
Mail list logo
