pylint -- should I just ignore it sometimes?

[Seebs]

On 2010-10-21, Jean-Michel Pichavant <jeanmichel at sequans.com> wrote:
> It can be short if descriptive:

> for o, c in cars:
>     park(o)
>     phone(c)

> for owner, car in cars: # by just using meaningful names you give the 
> info to the reader that you expect cars to be a list of tuple (owner, car)
>     park(owner)
>     phone(car) # see how it is easier to spot bug

In this case, yes.

The one that brought this up, though, was "except FooError, e:", and in
that case, there is no need for any further description; the description
is provided by the "except", and "e" is a perfectly reasonable, idiomatic,
pronoun for the caught exception.

-s
-- 
Copyright 2010, all wrongs reversed.  Peter Seebach / usenet-nospam at seebs.net
http://www.seebs.net/log/ <-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictures
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated!
I am not speaking for my employer, although they do rent some of my opinions.