On 09/23/2016 07:28 AM, Jan Cholasta wrote:
+1. I would rather use _meh as it's easier to type but perhaps not that
self-explanatory and not established at all, so _dummy is just fine :)
On 22.9.2016 16:39, Martin Basti wrote:
In 4.5, I would like to remove all unused variables from code and enable
pylint check. Due to big amount of unused variables in the code this
will be longterm effort.
* better code readability
* removing dead code
* unused variable may uncover potential bug
It is clear what to do with unused assignments, but I need an agreement
what to do with unpacking or iteration with unused variables
for name, surname, gender in (('Martin', 'Basti', 'M'), ):
name, surname, gender = user['mbasti']
Where 'surname' is unused
Pylint will detect surname as unused variable and we have to agree on a
way how to tell pylint that this variable is unused on purpose:
surname, # pylint: disable=unused-variable
) = user['mbasti']
I dont like this approach
Use defined keyword: 'dummy' is default in pylint, we can set our own,
like ignored, unused
name, dummy, gender = user['mbasti']
-1, not visible enough.
use a prefix for unused variables: '_' or 'ignore_'
name, _surname, gender = user['mbasti']
This. We have already been using it in new code for quite some time,
and it's common in other Python projects too. Don't reinvent the wheel.
we can combine all :)
For me the best is to have prefix '_' and 'dummy' keyword
Use '_dummy', it's both :-)
As first step I'll enable pylint check and disable it locally per module
where unused variables are, to avoid new regressions. Then I will fix it
module by module.
I'm open to suggestions
Manage your subscription for the Freeipa-devel mailing list:
Contribute to FreeIPA: http://www.freeipa.org/page/Contribute/Code