gtg-contributors team mailing list archive

[Izidor Matušov <izidor.matusov@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Nimit,

exactly that one (I forgot to include the link :/)

I updated the code, the current statstics of PEP8 violation:

3       E101 indentation contains mixed spaces and tabs
424     E111 indentation is not a multiple of four
1       E201 whitespace after '['
3       E202 whitespace before ')'
18      E203 whitespace before ','
3       E211 whitespace before '('
31      E221 multiple spaces before operator
1       E222 multiple spaces after operator
226     E225 missing whitespace around operator
19      E231 missing whitespace after ','
739     E251 no spaces around keyword / parameter equals
104     E261 at least two spaces before inline comment
35      E262 inline comment should start with '# '
9       E271 multiple spaces after keyword
141     E272 multiple spaces before keyword
7       E301 expected 1 blank line, found 0
47      E302 expected 2 blank lines, found 1
74      E303 too many blank lines (2)
156     E501 line too long (81 characters)
432     E502 the backslash is redundant between brackets
6       E701 multiple statements on one line (colon)
44      E711 comparison to None should be 'if cond is None:'
29      E712 comparison to False should be 'if cond is False:' or 'if 
not cond:'
3       W191 indentation contains tabs
50      W291 trailing whitespace
85      W293 blank line contains whitespace
16      W391 blank line at end of file
3       W601 .has_key() is deprecated, use 'in'
6       W602 deprecated form of raising exception
1       W604 backticks are deprecated, use 'repr()'
2716

It might be a little bit more than before. I am looking forward to day 
when there will be none violations :)

Izidor

On 12/22/2012 11:11 AM, Nimit Shah wrote:
> Hi Izidor!
>     Are you talking about this: http://pypi.python.org/pypi/pep8
>     Sounds great to me!
>
> On 12/22/12, Izidor Matušov <izidor.matusov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Hi Nimit,
> >
> > thank you for working on pep8ification of our code base!
> >
> > Recently I stumbled upon a standalone package pep8 [0] which does the
> > same thing as our ./scripts/pep8.py script. It has several advantages to
> > our script:
> >     * it is actively developed and maintained
> >     * can be put in our test suite -- breaking pep8ification => can't be
> > merged
> >     * less code in our codebase :)
> >
> > I propose to get rid of ./scripts/pep8.py and use pep8 standalone
> > module. It would mean that there might be couple of warnings left in the
> > already pep8.
> >
> > What do you say?
> >
> > Izidor