Does Python really follow its philosophy of "Readability counts"?

Terry Reedy tjreedy at
Thu Jan 15 21:37:00 CET 2009

Michele Simionato wrote:
> On Jan 14, 3:27 am, Paul Rubin <http://phr...@NOSPAM.invalid> wrote:>
>> I don't understand why some folks spew such violent rhetoric against
>> the idea of augmenting Python with features to alert you automatically
>> when you depart from the convention, so that you can check that the
>> departure is actually what you wanted.  A lot of the time, I find, the
>> departures are accidental and automated checks would save me
>> considerable debugging.
> I would be fine having something like pylint built-in in the language
> and running at every change of the source code (unless disabled with a
> command line switch). I think this is the only reasonable solution to
> get some additional protection we can hope for. A true change of the
> language IMO is impossible, both technically, politically and for
> legacy issue. Also, I am not convinced it would be a good idea, even
> theoretically. It is easier to write a new Python-like language
> from scratch than to add type checking to Python (I think you
> were not proposing adding type checking in this post, right?).

Integrating checkers with the interpreter is something that could/should 
be done by an IDE.  It should not be too hard, for instance, to give 
IDLE a configurable run-thru-PyLint option keyed, for instance, to 
shift-F5 (given that F5 is run-with-CPython).  Alt-F5 for instance could 
be run-Pylint-and-if-no-errors-then-CPython.

More information about the Python-list mailing list