Madan U S <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Last time I checked, many were bogus ones. For instance, I'm opposed to >> avoid the "is [not] None" paradigm. > > Well, now, I dont see a single "is [not] None" error from pychecker. > Anyways, why were you oppposed to it?
None is interned in CPython. There's no reason to go through the == semantic. > I will start working on the rest... will send multiple fixes in every > patch. I hope this is fine. What are the other issues? I don't like patches to shut up warnings caused by bugs/imperfections in external tools. If the tools help finding out real bugs, that's fine, let's fix them. But I'm -1 on any patch that tries to adjust code so to shut down non-issues and/or change our code to follow some coding convention (like the "is None" issue) the tools unilaterally decided it's the Good One(TM). -- Giovanni Bajo _______________________________________________ Svnmerge mailing list [email protected] http://www.orcaware.com/mailman/listinfo/svnmerge
