On 2010-10-19, Martin P. Hellwig <martin.hell...@dcuktec.org> wrote: > Well, as with all styles IMHO, if there is a _good_ reason to break it, > then by all means do, but you might want to consider putting in a > comment why you did that and add the #pylint: disable-msg=<message_id> > on that line. If that is overkill, why not just comply to the standard > and avoid all the fuzz?
Well, part of what I'm trying to understand is why the standard in question says what it says. I'm pretty much mystified by a claim that something with seven instance attributes is "too complicated". For instance, I've got a class which represents (approximately) a C function, for use in writing various wrappers related to it. It has name, return type, args, default values, a list of arguments which need various modifications, a default return value, and so on... And it ends up with, apparently, 10 instance attributes. I can't tell whether there's actually a general consensus that classes should never be nearly that complicated, or whether pylint is being a little dogmatic here -- I haven't seen enough other Python to be sure. I'm used to having objects with anywhere from two or three to a dozen or more attributes, depending on what kind of thing they model. It seems like a very odd measure of complexity; is it really that unusual for objects to have more than seven meaningful attributes? -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
