On 03/22/2018 06:30 PM, Ian Stapleton Cordasco wrote:
On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 4:23 PM, Alexander Todorov <atodo...@mrsenko.com> wrote:
Hi folks,
I've just noticed that a legacy piece of code I'm working with contains the
following pattern:
class SomeClass(object):
__all__ = ['add', 'delete']
def __init__(self):
pass
def get(self):
pass
def add(self, x):
pass
def delete(self, x):
pass
And the caller of this class actually uses the .get() method. I have this in
at least 10 different places.
I wasn't able to find any information about __all__ having any special
meaning when defined inside a class so this looks like a mistake.
Q1: Do we want pylint to warn about __all__ being detected not at module
level ?
Q2: Do we want another check to warn about class attributes staring with
single/double underscore ?
--
Alex
Hi Alex,
Regarding Q1: Maybe? It's not entirely clear based on your brief
example what the original author though __all__ did here.
Regarding Q2: Why would you want to prohibit class attributes starting
with single or double underscores? The former is useful for "private"
class attributes. The latter performs name mangling which can be
useful in situations (see:
https://stackoverflow.com/a/1301369/1953283). I don't think pylint
should be warning in this case.
And then, from http://xion.io/post/code/python-all-wild-imports.html, is
this little gem of a note:
All in all (ahem), this hints at a cute little trick which is also very
self-evident:
__all__ = ['DO_NOT_WILD_IMPORT']
Put this in a Python module, and no one will be able to import * from it!
Much more effective than any lint warning ;-)
_______________________________________________
code-quality mailing list
code-quality@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/code-quality
