horos11 wrote:
Anyways, maybe I got off to a bad start,
Blaming programming errors on non-existent bugs in the interpreter is not a way to endear yourself.
And perhaps Python truly is not your style.
Maybe PyChecker or PyLint will help, I don't know.
I do not use them, but others swear by them.
ps - an aside, but what was the rationale behind only displaying one error at a time on trying to run a script? I typically like to run a compilation phase inside my editor (vim), get a list of errors, and then go to each one and fix them.
It would complicate the compiler. It is consistent with the rest of Python's error reporting system (one runtime error only also). Error reports after the first may be bogus. Python aware editors, like the one with IDLE, put the cursor at the reported location of a syntax error. And they only have one cursor ;-).
And how do you just check a script's syntax without running it anyways?
The checker programs parse the code, so I would expect they report syntex errors.
Or: put $, a syntax error, on a line at the bottom of your script to abort execution. If the interpreter stops there, everything before is syntacally OK. If using a Python-aware editor, you will pop back into the edit window at the bottom of the file.
But of course, not running means not running the test code, so the program is not necessarily OK at all.
Terry Jan Reedy -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
