(original) (raw)

\[ideas to bcc\]

I'm not as excited about this as I am about the PEP 8 change.

PEP 8 affects most Python programmers.

But PEP 7 is really just for CPython and its extensions, and I don't think it has found anything like as widespread a following as PEP 8.

I worry that if we change this in PEP 7 we'll just see either massing inconsistent code or endless diffs that do nothing but change the formatting (and occasionally introduce a bug).

And I don't think it would do as much good -- reading and understanding C code is primarily a matter of knowing the language, and the audience is much more heavily skewed towards experts.

IOW, -1.

On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 1:27 PM, Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 5:33 AM, Joseph Jevnik <joejev@gmail.com> wrote:
\> I saw that there was recently a change to pep 8 to suggest adding a line
\> break before a binary operator. Pep 7 suggests the opposite:
\>
\>> When you break a long expression at a binary operator, the operator goes
\>> at the end of the previous line, e.g.:
\>
\>> if (type->tp\_dictoffset != 0 && base->tp\_dictoffset == 0 &&
\>> type->tp\_dictoffset == b\_size &&
\>> (size\_t)t\_size == b\_size + sizeof(PyObject \*))
\>> return 0; /\* "Forgive" adding a \_\_dict\_\_ only \*/
\>
\> I imagine that some of the reasons for making the change in pep 8 for
\> readability reasons will also
\> translate to C; maybe pep 7 should also be updated.

I would agree with this. Passing it directly to python-dev as that's
where the key decision makers are.

ChrisA
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
Python-ideas mailing list
Python-ideas@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/

--Guido van Rossum (python.org/\~guido)