[Python-ideas] Fwd: Fwd: A PEP to define basical metric which allows to guarantee minimal code quality

[alexandre.galode at gmail.com]

Hi,

After some reflexion on this full thread, with  all your arguments and 
discussion with my team, i have finally a better understanding on PEP 
finality. I saw that PEP 8 & 20 i used as example are "specials" PEP.

So i let my idea here, and eventually, as previously suggested, i'll 
contact PYCQA.

Thank you very much everybody for your help and your attention :)

Le mardi 26 septembre 2017 04:54:45 UTC+2, Nick Coghlan a écrit :
>
> Forwarding my reply, since Google Groups still can't get the Reply-To 
> headers for the mailing list right, and we still don't know how to 
> categorically prohibit posting from there. 
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- 
> From: Nick Coghlan <ncog... at gmail.com <javascript:>> 
> Date: 26 September 2017 at 12:51 
> Subject: Re: [Python-ideas] Fwd: A PEP to define basical metric which 
> allows to guarantee minimal code quality 
> To: Alexandre GALODE <alexandr... at gmail.com <javascript:>> 
> Cc: python-ideas <python... at googlegroups.com <javascript:>> 
>
>
> On 25 September 2017 at 21:49,  <alexandr... at gmail.com <javascript:>> 
> wrote: 
> > Hi, 
> > 
> > Sorry from being late, i was in professional trip to Pycon FR. 
> > 
> > I see that the subject is divising advises. 
> > 
> > Reading responses, i have impression that my proposal has been saw as 
> > mandatory, that i don't want of course. As previously said, i see this 
> "PEP" 
> > as an informational PEP. So it's a guideline, not a mandatory. Each 
> > developer will have right to ignore it, as each developer can choose to 
> > ignore PEP8 or PEP20. 
> > 
> > Perfect solution does not exist, i know it, but i think this "PEP" 
> could, 
> > partially, be a good guideline. 
>
> Your question is essentially "Are python-dev prepared to offer generic 
> code quality assessment advice to Python developers?" 
>
> The answer is "No, we're not". It's not our role, and it's not a role 
> we're the least bit interested in taking on. Just because we're the 
> ones making the software equivalent of hammers and saws doesn't mean 
> we're also the ones that should be drafting or signing off on people's 
> building codes :) 
>
> Python's use cases are too broad, and what's appropriate for my ad hoc 
> script to download desktop wallpaper backgrounds, isn't going to be 
> what's appropriate for writing an Ansible module, which in turn isn't 
> going to be the same as what's appropriate for writing a highly 
> scalable web service or a complex data analysis job. 
>
> So the question of "What does 'good enough for my purposes' actually 
> mean?" is something for end users to tackle for themselves, either 
> individually or collaboratively, without seeking specific language 
> designer endorsement of their chosen criteria. 
>
> However, as mentioned earlier in the thread, it would be *entirely* 
> appropriate for the folks participating in PyCQA to decide to either 
> take on this work themselves, or else endorse somebody else taking it 
> on. I'd see such an effort as being similar to the way that 
> packaging.python.org originally started as an independent PyPA project 
> hosted at python-packaging-user-guide.readthedocs.io, with a fair bit 
> of content already being added before we later requested and received 
> the python.org subdomain. 
>
> Cheers, 
> Nick. 
>
> -- 
> Nick Coghlan   |   ncog... at gmail.com <javascript:>   |   Brisbane, 
> Australia 
>
>
> -- 
> Nick Coghlan   |   ncog... at gmail.com <javascript:>   |   Brisbane, 
> Australia 
> _______________________________________________ 
> Python-ideas mailing list 
> Python... at python.org <javascript:> 
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas 
> Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/ 
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-ideas/attachments/20171009/63e67fb5/attachment-0001.html>