Pylint false positives

[Jon Ribbens]

On 2018-08-14, Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python at pearwood.info> wrote:
> If there really are a lot of such missing methods, I'd consider writing 
> something like this:
>
> class A:
>     def __init__(self, ...):
>         ...
>
>     # === process abstract methods en masse ===
>     for name in "method_a method_b method_c method_d".split():
>         @abstractmethod
>         def inner(self):
>             raise NotImplementedError
>         inner.__name__ = name
>         # This is okay, writing to locals works inside the class body.
>         locals()[name] = inner
>
>     del inner, name  # Clean up the class namespace.

You have a peculiar idea of "good style"...

> although to be honest I'm not sure if that would be enough to stop PyLint 
> from complaining.

No - if you think about it, there's no way Pylint could possibly know
that the above class has methods method_a, method_b, etc. It also
doesn't like the `del inner, name` because theoretically neither of
those names might be defined, if the loop executed zero times.