Luis Zarrabeitia <ky...@uh.cu> writes: > No wonder you can't get Bruno's point. For the second, static checks > to prevent accidents, you have pylint. For the first, not only you > are using the wrong tool, but you are barking at python for not > having it. Assuming that pylint is perfect (big assumption, but it > is up to you to prove where it fails),
Whaat? Assuming a program is perfect unless a failure is proven is not at all a sane approach to getting reliable software. It is the person claiming perfection who has to prove the absence of failure. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
