On Jan 16, 11:54 am, koffie <[email protected]> wrote:
> To bad nobody still noticed suggestion number 2 > 2. Could we maybe add some sort of "check for common bad practice" to > the doctest or coverage framework, I think something like pylint with > some sage specific plugins could be very usefull in the reviewing > process. I noticed :-) My two cents: I think it's good practice to use a python source checker (I'm fond of "pyflakes", which I found out about via a sage- devel thread some while back). However, such programs don't work at all on Cython code, and even on pure Python files, my experience is that they tend to produce a lot of spurious warnings. For instance, we have lots of "all.py" files whose purpose is simply to control what's imported into the global Sage namespace; pyflakes consistently complains "all.py: Name '[xxx]' imported but not used". So the output needs a bit of human intepretation, and hence trying to automate it as part of the doctest/coverage framework probably wouldn't work so well. David -- To post to this group, send an email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URL: http://www.sagemath.org
