On 11/18/19 4:53 PM, Andrew Barnert via Python-ideas wrote:
> On Nov 18, 2019, at 13:14, Chris Angelico <ros...@gmail.com> wrote: >> I wasn't aiming that at you, so much as pointing out how incredibly >> tricky it is to pin down all these definitions. So tricky, in fact, >> that it's almost completely not worth trying to define at all (in my >> opinion). [...] > I’m not sure this distinction is something we need to color-code in > the first place. There are plenty of things that are easier to nail > down (like local vs. cell vs. global/builtin) that IDEs don’t bother > to color-code. Why? I’m guessing it’s because if you throw hundreds of > color distinctions at people they cease to distinguish anything. Do > people really get subconsciously micro-confused or whatever by which > things are functions vs. other variables/names/values/whatever in the > first place? The most useful coloring I've ever used is what IntelliJ IDEA calls "semantic highlighting." Looks like they have it in PyCharm, too: https://blog.jetbrains.com/pycharm/2017/01/make-sense-of-your-variables-at-a-glance-with-semantic-highlighting/ TL;DR: instead of all identifiers of a given type having the same color, each identifier gets its own color. That way, e.g., all uses of self.foo are the same color, as are all instances of self.baz. I already know which identifiers are keywords (because of the syntax); it's way more useful to notice that the color of self.conversation isn't the same as the color of self.conservation (certain forms of color blindness notwithstanding). _______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list -- python-ideas@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-ideas-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-ideas.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-ideas@python.org/message/AM4AZHQR2RAH6RMRNUWJIQANGL676U4U/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
