On 4 January 2016 at 17:01, Terry Reedy <tjre...@udel.edu> wrote: > Ask the PSF/pypi people to either prohibit such names or require a > disclaimer of some sort. They are inherently confusing: "I took a look at > pep008" does not mean that one even looked at the PEP. Even when the > context makes clear that the referent is the module, there is confusion as > to its authoritativeness. That Facudo would post here about the module's > output illustrates that. To me, the name copying violates our informal > trademark within Pythonland on 'PEP####'.
I don't think that's the right answer, as opinionated tools do serve a useful purpose in preventing bikeshedding during code review (people *expect* computers to be annoyingly pedantic, which frees up the human reviewers to focus on higher level concerns). As projects evolve over time, they may develop their own tweaks and customisations in their style guide and switch to a more configurable tool, or they may not. When some of the default settings for the pep8 utility became a problem, I was able to talk to the developers and persuade them to tune their defaults to be more in line with the actual PEP text, and keep their extensions to optional settings. A similar approach may work for PEP 257, by clarifying which aspects tools should be leaving to human judgement (beyond the question of whether or not to opt in to following PEP 257 at all - it's far less universal than PEP 8). Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncogh...@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com