Sorry I didn't see this answer (as the title changed, it was moved to another topic in my mailbox). So I still believe code-folding indications don't really belong to the source files. But what you're showing is interesting, and the code folding is just a consequence of it. It can be as chapters or sub-chapters, which might be a nice organization of the code. I'm not sure of the relevance of the closing code though: If they are like chapters, they describe the content until the next chapter, or until the scope ends (end of method, of function, of class, ...). So the IDE just need to parse those comments and implement a code folding method based on it. It could simply be `### [description]`, like `### Security features`. I think it could be a good help in some cases, like in a settings.py files (like Django's one which can be pretty long). But there are downsides: - We should try to avoid to write classes, methods or functions that are too long. It often means that it should be split into smaller functionalities. This would probably not push the developers in the right direction if we asked them to used such a tool. But I don't know if this big-pieces-of-code-is-a-code-smell-for-refactorisation is true for scientific development, as I imagine there can be some quite long pieces of codes that really are meant to be together. - It still enforces a way of coding. Some prefer to group their methods by functionality (everything related to security is in grouped for example), but others prefer to sort their methods alphabetically. Or by type of methods (higher level methods first, lower level last), etc. Also, what about magic methods, or methods that are shared between two or more functionalities? So I'm not sure how I feel about this, the discussion and examples may be interesting (more than what I understood from first mail anyway!). -Brice Le 16/07/17 à 18:42, Connor Farrell a écrit :

Thanks for your feedback, I guess I was a little unclear. In short, I was thinking of a pair of comment tokens (something like #<<, #>>, idk) that would indicate a code fold, like what virtually all IDEs do for classes and methods, but with more granularity. It would allow devs to better organize their code. I agree with what you're saying about separation of language and text editor, but we already have the /typing/ module in 3.6, so improved linting and communication is apparently game. I have no desire to get the interpreter involved, this is pure linter. A good example would be something like:

class A: #<< INTERFACE def foo(): .... def bar(): .... #>>

#<< BACKEND def _guts(): .... #>>

Would become something like:

class A: *>+ INTERFACE

* * >+ BACKEND

* Where *modern* editors should fold the code. It provides an optional additional layer of granularity above the current system, but has no effect on behaviour otherwise. It increases visual information density in complex functions, large classes, and lets you group classes. It looks stupid with only three functions, but at larger sizes, or with complex code, I'd rather see:

def func(f: Callable[[float],float, float]) -> None: *>+* *Input validation*

*>+ Some complex algorithm * * * * >+ Some other complex algorithm

* * >+ Generating plot * * * It adds a human explanation of the code within, an additional level(s) of organization, and easier navigation. It's not for everyone, but I feel like it improves on the idea of modular code at for active devs, without any drawbacks for library users. * * * * * *

On Sun, Jul 16, 2017 at 12:00 PM, mailto:python-ideas-request@python.org> wrote:

Send Python-ideas mailing list submissions to python-ideas@python.org mailto:python-ideas@python.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to python-ideas-request@python.org mailto:python-ideas-request@python.org

You can reach the person managing the list at python-ideas-owner@python.org mailto:python-ideas-owner@python.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Python-ideas digest..."

Today's Topics:

1. Re: Custom Code Folding: Standardized Rules and Syntax? (Steven D'Aprano)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1 Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2017 01:15:59 +1000 From: Steven D'Aprano mailto:steve@pearwood.info> To: python-ideas@python.org mailto:python-ideas@python.org Subject: Re: [Python-ideas] Custom Code Folding: Standardized Rules and Syntax? Message-ID: <20170716151559.GW3149@ando.pearwood.info mailto:20170716151559.GW3149@ando.pearwood.info> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

Hi Connor, and welcome!

On Sun, Jul 16, 2017 at 10:37:26AM -0400, Connor Farrell wrote: > Background: I work in scientific computing and use Community Pycharm IDE. > > I'm a religious follower of the 'readability counts' mantra, and two things > I find myself doing often are: > - Writing custom code folds to segregate code, from groups of classes in a > file, to groups of lines in an individual function. While spacing works > great to separate ideas, my IDE allows me to collapse the entirety of the > code in exchange for a line of English. For my purposes, this enhances > readability immensely, as first time users are confronted with an > explanation of the contents, rather than the code itself with a comment on > top. I find comments don't draw the eye, and also don't have the ability to > their code as well.

I'm afraid I'm having a lot of difficulty understanding this. I think the last sentence is missing a word. Comments don't have the ability to **what** their (whose?) code?

Which IDE are you using? When you say it collapses the "entirety of the code", do you mean the entire file?

> - Writing high level code, such as __init__ calls for large aggregates, > with one keyworded argument per line (plus dict unpackings at the end), > sort of like a simple XML file.

Even if I accept that this is a reasonable design for __init__, I would not agree that it is a reasonable design for "high level code" in general.

> This allows me to make parameters explicit > for other users, and optionally provide a comment indicating physical > units, cite sources, and/or give a list of tag/enum options for every > parameter. In the end I have 30+ line inits, but the readability is 10x > greater.

Perhaps I might be convinced if I saw some actual code, but from your description alone, it doesn't sound particularly more readable. Why would I want to read citations in the parameter list of a method? I want to call the method, not do peer review on the theory behind it.

> My IDE doesn't yet offer to fold long parameter lists by default, > but I think it makes sense.

*shrug*

Personally, I don't find code folding a big help. Perhaps once in a blue moon. I'm glad you like it and that it helps you.

> In the end, I end up with very well folded code (except for large parameter > lists) and a bunch of co-workers asking about all the "editor-fold" > comments that don't work in their API.

I'm afraid I'm not understanding you here either. What's an "editor-fold" comment? What do they mean by API? API for which application? How does the programming interface to an application relate to code folding in a text editor?

> Python was a trail-blazer in terms of emphasizing the importance of code > readability and effective syntax. I think that we should consider some sort > of standard for folding comments, if not only to promote stronger code > organizations. I know standards don't usually interact with IDEs, but hey, > the 'typing' module is pretty dang nice. > > TL;DR: Code folding is great, custom code folding is great, let's upgrade > it to a language feature.

What does that even mean? Are you suggesting that the Python interpreter should raise a SyntaxError or something if your code was written in an editor that didn't support code folding? How would it know?

Python is a programming language. The source code is text. I should be able to write Python code in NotePad if I want. Why should the Python core devs try to force every text editor and IDE fold code exactly the same way? That sounds awful to me. People choose different editors because they like different features, and that may include the particular way the editor folds code. Or to not fold it at all.

I'm sorry to be so negative, but I don't understand your proposal, and the bits that I *think* I understand sound pretty awful to me. Perhaps you can explain a bit better what you mean and why it should be a language feature, apart from "I want everyone to lay out their source code the way I do". Because that's what it sounds like to me.

-- Steve

------------------------------

Subject: Digest Footer

_______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list Python-ideas@python.org mailto:Python-ideas@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas

------------------------------

End of Python-ideas Digest, Vol 128, Issue 41 *********************************************

_______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list Python-ideas@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/