On Wed, 12 Apr 2006 17:24:28 +0530, Giovanni Bajo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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.
hmmm, true.
>
>> 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
Agree.
> 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).
Okay... following up this mail, I will compile the list of errors from pychecker and mention which ones I feel should be fixed. I will send a patch once we have a consensus on which ones need to be fixed and which ones need not be. would that be okay?
Regards,
Madan.
_______________________________________________ Svnmerge mailing list [email protected] http://www.orcaware.com/mailman/listinfo/svnmerge
