|
|
|
|
|
|
by priansh
1756 days ago
|
|
|
I shouldn't need to read the code extremely closely or repeatedly to have to figure out what it does when the while loop does it clearly (and in a bounded way that you can literally mathematically prove). Also, I would scream if some opinionated dev gone crazy with their linter added pylint disables and comments explaining it every time we use a while loop in our codebase. Why does the linter rule not, instead, check if the while loop is unbounded and warn the user of that? Surely screaming fire when there's an actual fire is better than screaming fire at the first sign of smoke. |
|
|
That sounds like a bad situation, but it completely depends on "every time we use a while loop". The entire point of lint checks is to reduce the occurrences of certain patterns (like while loops, in this case). This post is arguing that "every time we use a while loop" should ideally be the same as "never", in which case you're still correct, but vacuously so.
For a less controversial example, try running your comment through sed 's/while loop/eval/g'. There are certainly situations where 'eval' is the only way to do something; and other situations where 'eval' would be more readable/efficient (e.g. compared to writing a file and spawning a subprocess). Yet we go out of our way to minimise our reliance on 'eval', and I certainly wouldn't mind adding a pylint-disable comment for those times I use it (every few years).