Docstrings considered too complicated
jeanmichel at sequans.com
Fri Feb 26 15:50:25 CET 2010
Andreas Waldenburger wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Feb 2010 12:51:00 -0800 (PST) John Roth
> <johnroth1 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Feb 24, 1:23 pm, Andreas Waldenburger <use... at geekmail.INVALID>
>>> a company that works with my company writes a lot of of their code
>>> in Python (lucky jerks). I've seen their code and it basically
>>> looks like this:
>>> """Function that does stuff"""
>>> def doStuff():
>>> while not wise(up):
>>> yield scorn
>> Is the problem that they've got the docstring in the wrong place,
>> or that the comment isn't saying anything that can't be read in
>> the method name?
> It's the first. I am superficial like that. I just needed a docstring
> to illustrate and didn't want to get overly creative.
> Not that they don't write redundant docstrings.
> And they use mixedCase function/method names.
and ? whatIsTheProblem ?
PEP8 is one style guide, not *the* style guide. There is neither
technical nor readability issue with mixedCase, classes in PEP 8 using
MixedCase. The thing is they had to chose one preference for the methods
and they choose lower_case. Fine, but it's still a matter of preference
(or arbitrary decision). Since you don't write code for the standard
library, you can use any other naming convention.
You've may have guessed it, I am using mixedCase method names, and I
tell you, you cannot compare this in any way with their dumb usage of
doctrings you've shown above.
That being said, yoru OP's still soemhow funny, I would have shot them
on sight :-)
More information about the Python-list