On Fri, Mar 9, 2018 at 10:57 AM, Ben Finney <ben+pyt...@benfinney.id.au> wrote: > 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.)
LOL! Sorry, I derped a bit on the grammar there. Yes, I meant that you can often catch those mistakes with your editor, but not always. There are some errors that cannot possibly be caught by an editor, of course; but there are others that theoretically could be, but I almost never see them. That's the point I was raising - not really an objection, but a segue into my next comment. ChrisA -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
