Hi,
Thank you for reviewing my patches!
W605 would be a syntax error in python 3.10.
https://bugs.python.org/issue32912
There are tens of docstrings like this in nx_actions.py, which
violates W605.
..
set_field:value[/mask]->dst
..
+------------------------------------------------------------+
| **set_field**\:\ *value*\ **[**\/\ *mask*\ **]**\->\ *dst* |
+------------------------------------------------------------+
We can just add 'r' to the head of the docstring to make it a
rawstring, but I'd like to simplify this to
.. option:: set_field:value[/mask]->dst
That's not as pretty as the current doc but it's easier to maintain.
What do you think?
I agree with you.
The maintainability should take precedence than the pretty looks.
Also nobody can immediately understand
> +------------------------------------------------------------+
> | **set_field**\:\ *value*\ **[**\/\ *mask*\ **]**\->\ *dst* |
> +------------------------------------------------------------+
will represent
> set_field:value[/mask]->dst
I guess though...
> On second thought, I just used raw strings (r"""foo""").
> If we won't change this docstring in future, smaller patches would be
> better.
Thanks, it looks good to me.
On 2018年06月13日 12:06, IWAMOTO Toshihiro wrote:
On Tue, 12 Jun 2018 17:26:50 +0900,
IWAMOTO Toshihiro wrote:
On Tue, 12 Jun 2018 15:17:35 +0900,
IWASE Yusuke wrote:
Signed-off-by: IWASE Yusuke <iwase.yusu...@gmail.com>
---
tox.ini | 6 ++++--
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/tox.ini b/tox.ini
index 758d1661..5d8712e1 100644
--- a/tox.ini
+++ b/tox.ini
@@ -52,14 +52,16 @@ commands =
[pycodestyle]
exclude = pbr-*,.venv,.tox,.git,doc,dist,tools,vcsversion.py,.pyc,ryu/contrib
-# W503: line break occurred before a binary operator
+# W503: line break before binary operator
+# W504: line break after binary operator
+# W605: invalid escape sequence
W605 would be a syntax error in python 3.10.
https://bugs.python.org/issue32912
There are tens of docstrings like this in nx_actions.py, which
violates W605.
..
set_field:value[/mask]->dst
..
+------------------------------------------------------------+
| **set_field**\:\ *value*\ **[**\/\ *mask*\ **]**\->\ *dst* |
+------------------------------------------------------------+
We can just add 'r' to the head of the docstring to make it a
rawstring, but I'd like to simplify this to
.. option:: set_field:value[/mask]->dst
That's not as pretty as the current doc but it's easier to maintain.
What do you think?
On second thought, I just used raw strings (r"""foo""").
If we won't change this docstring in future, smaller patches would be
better.
--
IWAMOTO Toshihiro
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Ryu-devel mailing list
Ryu-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ryu-devel
