On 23 September 2013 22:14, Skip Montanaro <s...@pobox.com> wrote: > >> Should pylint really be this strict? Or am I expected to implement > >> everything necessary for an array-like containiner and just raise > >> exceptions in those methods the user really shouldn't access? > > > > No I'ld say you're right. While it sounded a good idea when proposed, > you're not > > the first one being confused by this message, so I tend to think this > check > > should be either removed or kept for well defined and all-or-nothing > protocols > > (the only one coming to my mind being the context manager __enter__ / > __exit__, > > but there may be others). I would be glad to have others'opinion though. > > It occurs to me that the reverse case is likely still correct. That > is, if __getitem__ is defined, omitting __len__ should happen only > rarely, and probably require an explicit suppression somewhere, > probably in the class definition. >
Several times I've implemented classes with dynamic behaviour in __getitem__, so they have no strict length (beyond "theoretically infinite"). Michael > > Skip > _______________________________________________ > code-quality mailing list > code-quality@python.org > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/code-quality > -- http://www.voidspace.org.uk/ May you do good and not evil May you find forgiveness for yourself and forgive others May you share freely, never taking more than you give. -- the sqlite blessing http://www.sqlite.org/different.html
_______________________________________________ code-quality mailing list code-quality@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/code-quality
