On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 3:44 PM, jkn <[email protected]> wrote: > I don't know of one, I'm afraid. I think it's a lit easier to just > check & warn than to fix; false positives (or is that negatives?) are > also a lot less dangerous in a checker only.
There will be a set of "preflight" options so you can see what the fixer intends to do before it actually does it. And the Leonine wrappers will be undoable (in Leo). There may also be some logging features that will reassure people. > Personally, there are enough things I don't like about PEP-8 that I've > never felt the need to adopt it. There is IMO no problem with having a > 'house style' if you prefer. > > Of course making everything adhere to such a style might still involve > a checker/fixer program... Right. The intention is to make each fixer simple enough so that you can change them if you like. And there will be options to disable or configure fixers as you like. Having said that, I am becoming less happy with Leo's own house style. I may prefer camelCase for functions and methods, but imo it would be better if Leo's code followed typical conventions. But the main reason I want to write a pep8 fixer is because I think Python deserves simple and effective language tools. And I want to show that the problem is not all that difficult. Indeed, fancy parsing, ast trees and tokens just get in the way. Edward -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "leo-editor" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/leo-editor?hl=en.
