Does Python really follow its philosophy of "Readability counts"?

[Patrick Steiger]

2009/1/20 Paul Rubin <"http://phr.cx"@nospam.invalid>

> Luis Zarrabeitia <kyrie at uh.cu> writes:
> > No wonder you can't get Bruno's point. For the second, static checks
> > to prevent accidents, you have pylint. For the first, not only you
> > are using the wrong tool, but you are barking at python for not
> > having it. Assuming that pylint is perfect (big assumption, but it
> > is up to you to prove where it fails),
>
> Whaat?  Assuming a program is perfect unless a failure is proven
> is not at all a sane approach to getting reliable software.  It is
> the person claiming perfection who has to prove the absence of failure.
> --
> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
>

To quote Carl Sagan (who quoted someone else, i guess),

"Abscence of evidence is not evidence of abscence"

-- 
"I May Be the Walrus."
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-list/attachments/20090120/b921c8d4/attachment-0001.html>