On 23.9.2016 13:23, Standa Laznicka wrote:
On 09/23/2016 07:28 AM, Jan Cholasta wrote:
On 22.9.2016 16:39, Martin Basti wrote:
Hello all,

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.

Why this?:

* 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 example:

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 :-)

+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 :)

What I'm actually suggesting is that any local variable with "_" prefix should be considered unused, so _meh would be fine as well.

Jan Cholasta

Manage your subscription for the Freeipa-devel mailing list:
Contribute to FreeIPA: http://www.freeipa.org/page/Contribute/Code

Reply via email to