[Python-Dev] Re: [Patches] selfnanny.py: checking for "self" in every method
Moshe Zadka <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sat, 4 Mar 2000 20:02:54 +0200 (IST)
On Sat, 4 Mar 2000, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> Before we all start writing nannies and checkers, how about a standard
> API design first?
I thoroughly agree -- we should have a standard API. I tried to write
selfnanny so it could be callable from any API possible (e.g., it can
take either a file, a string, an ast or a tuple representation)
> I will want to call various nannies from a "Check"
> command that I plan to add to IDLE.
Very cool: what I imagine is a sort of modular PyLint.
> I already did this with tabnanny,
> and found that it's barely possible -- it's really written to run like
> a script.
Mine definitely isn't: it's designed to run both like a script and like
a module. One outstanding bug: no docos. To be supplied upon request <0.5
wink>. I just wanted to float it out and see if people think that this
particular nanny is worth while.
> Since parsing is expensive, we probably want to share the parse tree.
Yes. Probably as an AST, and transform to tuples/lists inside the
Here's a strawman API:
There's a package called Nanny
Every module in that package should have a function called check_ast.
It's argument is an AST object, and it's output should be a list
of three-tuples: (line-number, error-message, None) or
(line-number, error-message, (column-begin, column-end)) (each tuple can
be a different form).
(I'm CCing to python-dev. Please follow up to that discussion to
python-dev only, as I don't believe it belongs in patches)
Moshe Zadka <email@example.com>.