2009/1/20 Paul Rubin <"http://phr.cx"@nospam.invalid>
> 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 > To quote Carl Sagan (who quoted someone else, i guess), "Abscence of evidence is not evidence of abscence" -- "I May Be the Walrus."
-- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
