> I'd like us to avoid meaningless reviewer churn here: I'd like us to avoid trivial style guideline churn :)
> The case that made me raise this is this: > folder_exists, file_exists, file_size_in_kb, disk_extents = \ > self._path_file_exists(ds_browser, folder_path, file_name) > > Wrapping that in brackets gets this; > folder_exists, file_exists, file_size_in_kb, disk_extents = ( > self._path_file_exists(ds_browser, folder_path, file_name)) > > Which is IMO harder to read - double brackets, but no function call, > and no tuple: it's more ambiguous than \. I prefer consistency for readability over most everything. In Nova, we have a few cases of backslash continuations, which I think are mostly in old db_api code, but I think it's overwhelmingly paren-based continuations. I'd much rather keep things the way they are except for situations where there is a real problem. I think that when modifying existing backslash-using code, nobody argues, and I think that if an author were to make a reasonable readability argument in a specific case, that reviewers would allow the backslash method. --Dan _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
