[Samuel Colvin]
>
> I don't see how anyone can say that would be more readable with a 80
> character line limit.
For starters, type annotations don't add anything that good documentation
would have required before. In most docstring style guides that I know of,
the arguments list is supposed to be at least one line per argument, so
really it should look like so:
def resolve_annotations(raw_annotations, module_name):
"""
description of what the function does
Arguments:
raw_annotations (type annotation): description of raw_annotations
module_name (type annotation): description of module name
Returns (type annotation): description or return value
"""
Which can easily be replaced with:
def resolve_annotations(
raw_annotations: Dict[str, Type[Any]],
module_name: Optional[str])
-> Dict[str, Type[Any]]:
"""
description of what the module does
Arguments:
raw_annotations: description of raw_annotations
module_name: description of module name
Returns: description or return value
"""
Often, I find, people make add a lot of redundant noise to names which is
either clear from context like; math.log, not
math.mathematical_log_function, or doesn't add anything like; user_data
instead of user, or job_info instead of job, or raw_annotations instead of
annotations. It's often just as good to write:
def resolve(annotations: Dict[str, Type[Any]], module: Optional[str])
-> Dict[str, Type[Any]]:
"""..."""
On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 8:30 AM Samuel Colvin <s...@muelcolvin.com> wrote:
> I too would argue that it's time to reconsider line length limits.
>
> But the reason is not monitor changes, or any particularly strong personal
> opinion, but changes to python:
>
> Let's take a real life example from here
> <https://github.com/samuelcolvin/pydantic/blob/master/pydantic/utils.py#L246>
> (changed
> very slightly for this example), in tranitional python the signature might
> be:
>
> def resolve_annotations(raw_annotations, module_name):
>
> 55 characters, all fine. Now let's look at that same function in modern
> python with type hints:
>
> def resolve_annotations(*, raw_annotations: Dict[str, Type[Any]],
> module_name: Optional[str]) -> Dict[str, Type[Any]]:
>
> 119 characters! No daft 5-word variable names, just a clean (if strict)
> function definition. I don't see how anyone can say that would be more
> readable with a 80 character line limit. And that's not even an extreme
> case, we don't have lots of "Optional[..]" or "Tuple[ThingA, ThingB,
> ThingC]".
>
> Type hints (for good or bad depending on your view point) have made python
> code more verbose, that's just a fact. Code that used to fit on one line
> with 80char limit now require 120 (or more), therefore in my opinion the
> recommendation should change to keep up with changes in python.
>
> My preference is 120 characters (that's also the default in pycharm I
> believe). It works well on a desktop monitor, leaving room for a file
> browser and part of another window, it's also fine on a 13" laptop screen.
>
> Then again, every IDE and linter I've used (even black) allows the line
> length to be varried, so this is only really a problem in the standard
> library and libraries which adhere closely to pep8.
>
> Samuel
> _______________________________________________
> Python-ideas mailing list
> Python-ideas@python.org
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas
> Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
>
_______________________________________________
Python-ideas mailing list
Python-ideas@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
