[Python-ideas] SyntaxWarning for for/while/else without break or return?
debatem1 at gmail.com
Sun Oct 11 07:05:33 CEST 2009
On Sat, Oct 10, 2009 at 10:56 PM, Steven D'Aprano <steve at pearwood.info> wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 02:30:51 am Nick Coghlan wrote:
>> import * at function level is genuinely harmful because of the effect
>> it has on the compiler on top of the effect it has on readability. It
>> makes sense to warn about it.
> Right. It's so dangerous that it's becoming illegal. You can't just turn
> language features illegal overnight, you have to go through a period of
> deprecation. This makes perfect sense, and is the primary use-case for
> warnings in Python.
>> > Even though `import *` at the module level is a frequent source of
>> > bugs and confusion even for experienced coders, and the usual
>> > advice is Just Don't Do It, Python does not generate a warning for
>> > that case.
>> Actually, we don't generate a warning for this because there are
>> significant legitimate use cases for import * at the module level
>> that can't be handled any other way (the two that immediately come to
>> mind are for convenience at the interactive prompt and for bringing
>> in methods and classes from an optional acceleration module as
>> happens in a number of standard library modules). We can hardly
>> generate a warning for constructs that we use ourselves.
> Of course we can. But we shouldn't, it would be silly.
> The point is that there are many language features that are pointless,
> silly or troublesome, and we don't -- and shouldn't -- raise warnings
> for them. I don't see for...else to be exceptional enough to deserve a
> language warning.
>> That's not an assert statement using parentheses purely for line
>> continuation - it's an assertion of a 2-tuple that will never fail,
>> and a naive user may not realise what is happening (thus getting very
>> confused when their assert statement appears to pass, but subsequent
>> code relying on that assertion fails anyway).
> I don't believe the language should be hand-holding the naive user to
> that extent. What do we do, fill the compiler up with a thousand
> warnings for things which might confuse some naive user? What ever
> happened to "We're all adults here"? The solution to naive users is for
> the user to learn more about the language and be less naive, not for
> the language to hold his hand. The compiler isn't your babysitter, and
> Python isn't meant to be a teaching language for kiddies.
> The proliferation of warnings leads to complacently among naive users
> ("I don't need to understand this feature to use it, the compiler will
> warn me if I do something wrong") and, much worse, overload among
> non-naive users ("it's just another damn warning, ignore it, the
> compiler is just complaining about nothing"). In my opinion, we've
> already taken too many steps down this path, lets not go any further.
>> The warning could probably be refined such that it only triggers for
>> a 2-tuple as the sole argument to an assert statement, but how often
>> is such a false triggering actually going to happen in real code
>> rather than dummy examples?
> It's a bug -- it is output that is generated unnecessarily. Defending it
> on the basis that it's a rare bug is not a wise idea.
>> For the loop else clauses, the users who are going to get themselves
>> into trouble are the ones who *think* they know what it means, but
>> actually don't (i.e. not the sort of people that are likely to be
>> regularly running pylint or pychecker over their code).
> You can't protect ignorant, naive and downright stupid users against
> themselves. It's a never-ending problem.
> Perhaps we should raise a warning when the user says:
> for in in range(len(sequence)):
> SyntaxWarning: There's probably a better way to do this.
> or for list.insert?
> PerformanceWarning: This may be slow for large lists.
> You may think I'm exaggerating, but Python already does something
> similar, only worse. The built-in sum() prohibits summing strings
> because it may be O(N**2) -- even though in recent versions of CPython,
> it may not be, even though for small numbers of small strings it makes
> no practical difference, and even though it allows O(N**2) summation of
> lists! A naive user will be lulled into a false sense of security that
> sum(list_of_lists, ) is fine, and an advanced user who wants to use
> sum() as a teaching aid to show how repeated string concatenation is
> slow is frustrated.
> Steven D'Aprano
> Python-ideas mailing list
> Python-ideas at python.org
I realize that this will strike many here as heresy, but yelling
"RTFM, n00b!" is not actually a productive way to resolve
what is clearly a point of difficulty for a sizeable number of
More information about the Python-ideas