On 2010-10-13, Jean-Michel Pichavant <jeanmic...@sequans.com> wrote:
> If you wonder about some defects reported by such linters, you can then
> ask in this list why something is not that good, because it may not be
> always obvious.
> 'pylint' is one them, pretty effective.
Okay, several questions about stuff pylint found.
1. If I have a message that I wish to print, it is quite possible
that message + indentation exceeds 80 lines. What's the idiomatic way
to solve this? Do I just break the string up into parts, or do I just
accept that some lines are over 80 characters, or what?
2. It warns about **kw, both because the name is short and because of
the "** magic". I was previously advised that the name "kw" is canonical
for that usage, in which case, why am I getting linted at?
3. More generally, the usage of **kw is probably not really right, but I'm
not sure what to do.
The issue here is as follows:
In C, some functions have an optional argument with the curious trait that,
if present, it is always of the same type. e.g., open(2). In my wrappers,
I indicate this by declaring it as something like "...{mode_t mode}". The
intent is that in a declaration, this will turn into:
foo(blah blah blah, ... /* mode_t mode */)
so there's an indication of why there's a "..." there.
But C comments don't nest. And there's a couple of points where I want to
put the declaration in a comment. So in those cases, I need to do something
other than /*...*/:
/* foo(blah blah blah, ... mode_t mode) */
The problem: The determination of whether I wish to do this is at the level
of the "represent this function in the following way" (Function.comment()),
but the implementation is two layers down. So right now, I am passing
down 'comment = True' from the top level through, and I'm doing it using
a **kw keyword argument.
The rationale is that I could just use
def decl(comment = False):
...
but then the invocation:
func.decl(True)
would be utterly opaque. I want to name the thing I'm passing or otherwise
indicate what it is.
It could be that I am Doing This Wrong. Is there a good idiom for labeling
optional arguments, and passing them on (if they exist)?
-s
--
Copyright 2010, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach / usenet-nos...@seebs.net
http://www.seebs.net/log/ <-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictures
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated!
I am not speaking for my employer, although they do rent some of my opinions.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
