Chris Angelico <ros...@gmail.com> writes: > On Fri, Mar 9, 2018 at 10:33 AM, Ben Finney <ben+pyt...@benfinney.id.au> > wrote: > > In many cases, those eyes can be virtual and non-human. > > > > That's what syntax highlighting, and tools even more impressive > > (e.g. linting tools that run continually), offer in a programmer's > > text editor: a pair of eyes looking for mistakes while you type. > > Often true, but not always.
You mean the tool is not always looking for mistakes while you type? If you mean that the tool doesn't catch all mistakes: of course not, and I didn't imply it would. Are you saying that's a reason against using such automated tools? (If not, I don't really understand what objection you're making.) Certainly it'd be good to always have a *perfect* overseer checking for mistakes while one types. Until that happy day, though, let's use the tools available to improve our code before even attempting to run it. -- \ “The fact that I have no remedy for all the sorrows of the | `\ world is no reason for my accepting yours. It simply supports | _o__) the strong probability that yours is a fake.” —Henry L. Mencken | Ben Finney -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
