[Python-Dev] pep8 reasoning

[Donald Stufft]

On Apr 25, 2014, at 7:56 PM, Florent <florent.xicluna at gmail.com> wrote:

> 2014-04-26 0:46 GMT+02:00 Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan at gmail.com>:
>> Florent is claiming the endorsement of the PEP 8 authors
>> and the consensus of python-dev for the tool's default behaviour
>> (as noted above, this makes it personal for me, as I am a
>> co-author of PEP 8).
> 
> You're a co-author of PEP 8 since less than a year.
> I'm the maintainer of the pep8 tool since 2010.
> 
> You should probably read the LICENSE file which is shipped with the
> pep8 too, and the disclaimer that I've posted previously.  Never I
> engage the responsibility of the authors of the PEP 8 document, and I
> don't give any guarantee of being a *strict* PEP 8 compliance tool.

I agree that I’ve never taken the name to mean that you’re claiming any
sort of endorsement. There are a *vast* number of projects that implement
something that was defined somewhere else and I don’t think any reasonable
person can assume that all of those tools are endorsed by the authors
of what they are implementing.

> 
> However, you should notice that your ticket in the tracker is opened
> for 2 months only, and I did not flagged it as being resolved.  As
> I've stated in my previous mail, I give priority to bugs over other
> requests.  And even if you think it is a critical bug for yourself, it
> did not appear like that for the thousands of people which used the
> library for the last few years.
> 
> But if you read the documentation carefully, you can see that I've
> already excluded some checks from the default behavior in the previous
> releases, when there was an argument which was backed by the PEP 8
> itself:
> "In the default configuration, the checks E123, E133, E226, E241 and
> E242 are ignored
> because they are not rules unanimously accepted, and PEP 8 does not
> enforce them."
> http://pep8.readthedocs.org/en/latest/intro.html#error-codes
> The question stay opened for issue #256 and codes E121 and E701.
> As I said before, they are not against PEP 8, they interpret some words.
> If you're nitpicking, you can probably reject half the checks of the
> pep8 tool with similar allegations.
> 
>> I *want* to be able to recommend this tool universally. But at the moment,
>> I cannot, as its name is a lie: it enforces rules I don't personally agree with.
> 
> Maybe I prefer you don't recommend it in the PEP 8 documentation if it
> means I'll be tied to your "personal preferences" and that I'll be
> forced to patch it every now and then when you change a line, or a
> punctuation in a PEP 8 example.
> 
> At the end, I find you're a bit rude when you come to this project
> which is not endorsed by the PSF or any Python-Dev related entity and
> you say "this project is wrong, because the developer did not obey to
> me when I order to remove that feature".
> You're more sympathetic and less in a hurry when it comes to some
> languishing bug on b.p.o :-)
> 
> If you're so impatient, let's fork it and put in in cpython/Tools/
> I would not fight against it.
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> -- 
> Florent
> _______________________________________________
> Python-Dev mailing list
> Python-Dev at python.org
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
> Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/donald%40stufft.io


-----------------
Donald Stufft
PGP: 0x6E3CBCE93372DCFA // 7C6B 7C5D 5E2B 6356 A926 F04F 6E3C BCE9 3372 DCFA

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 801 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20140425/15190127/attachment.sig>