> Several times I've implemented classes with dynamic behaviour in
> __getitem__, so they have no strict length (beyond "theoretically
> infinite").
Understood, and that's a case where I think you should suppress the
warning. I believe the common case is that if you can get a particular
item you c
On 23 September 2013 22:14, Skip Montanaro wrote:
> >> Should pylint really be this strict? Or am I expected to implement
> >> everything necessary for an array-like containiner and just raise
> >> exceptions in those methods the user really shouldn't access?
> >
> > No I'ld say you're right. Whi
>> Should pylint really be this strict? Or am I expected to implement
>> everything necessary for an array-like containiner and just raise
>> exceptions in those methods the user really shouldn't access?
>
> No I'ld say you're right. While it sounded a good idea when proposed, you're
> not
> the f
Hi Skip,
On 23 septembre 09:07, Skip Montanaro wrote:
> Having demonstrated my confusion about early breaks from loops, I will
> proceed to demonstrate my confusion about containers.
:)
> I have a queue-like class in which I implement __len__ but not
> __getitem__. Pylint complains:
>
> timedd
Having demonstrated my confusion about early breaks from loops, I will
proceed to demonstrate my confusion about containers.
I have a queue-like class in which I implement __len__ but not
__getitem__. Pylint complains:
timeddata.py:79: [R0924(incomplete-protocol), TimedDataQueue] Badly
implemente
