Jeremy Hylton <jeremy@alum.mit.edu> writes:
On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 8:50 AM, Jesse Noller <jnoller@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 3:14 AM, Ben Finney <ben+python@benfinney.id.au> wrote:
Not a firm objection: pylint is also the most complex (AFAICT). Perhaps a simpler one that still does a good job would be best for stdlib consideration.
+1, something which does simple linting, and pep 8 checking would be a big enough benefit over what we have now. Ideally, it would support extensibility for additional rules.
I don't see much value in building a new lint tool. I might like it if pylint were less complex than it is, but I don't understand the design fully enough to have justification for that. If we can get a good PEP 8 checker out of pylint, it would be silly to write something from scratch.
AFAIK, nobody is suggesting writing one from scratch; earlier in this thread we explored the fact that there are several already written and working. -- \ “Always code as if the guy who ends up maintaining your code | `\ will be a violent psychopath who knows where you live.” —John | _o__) F. Woods | Ben Finney