What PEP 8 guidelines do you ignore, and which ones do you stick to? [closed]

Over the years, the more Python I write, the more I find myself agreeing with most of the guidelines, though I consistently and intentionally break some for my own reasons.

I'd be curious to know what in PEP 8 (or other PEPs too maybe) people religiously stick to and why, and what people find inconvenient or inadequate.

In my case (and at work in general), there's only a handful of things we deviate from:

Underscore separated lowercase names, I can see the point of it, as it will unfailingly be consistent, but we tend to use lowerCamelCase, even if it will occasionally introduce some inconsistencies (such as partially or mis-capitalized acronyms and following words, which are often down to spur-of-the-moment calls). Mostly because the near totality of the APIs we routinely use use camelCase (some upper, some lower), and because for some reason I find it easier to read, and tend to reserve underscores as separation tokens or prescribed mangling/obscuring.
I still can't get myself to space things out the way the PEP prescribes inside objects. new and init I tend to leave right under the class with no blank lines as I always want to read them right there with the class name and args, methods that contribute to the same scope of functionality in the class (say init, get and set of the same attrib or set of attribs) I only single-space apart, and I like three spaces between classes, and two between methods I wouldn't mentally aggregate in the map of that object. This is, again, purely for the visual impact and readability of the code. I find that very compact contents inside flow control and this kind of spacing between methods and objects consistently leads my eye exactly where I want it to go on re-readings months after the code had been parked. It also responds well to folding in my editors of choice.
Some things instead I stick to, that drive me nuts when I read otherwise written, is tabs instead of spaces (especially when some in-app editors we use don't really have tab replacement functionalities, contributing considerably to pollution in the code base at prototyping stage).
Order of things such as imports, and what imports, globals etc. It really throws me off on files that have large amounts of imports when those are mixed up or out of order.
Whitespaces in statements, especially when people use tabs AND try to align assignment ops across lines with different length in var names (and there seems to be no way to persuade those who do it that an excel looking piece of code is NOT neater ;) ).
And spacing within a control block, particularly when I see apparently random spacing within the same flow control block, and then similar amounts of spacing used within the object for methods. I'm compelled to edit those before I can even start reading the damn thing.

So, those are mine, and the reasoning behind my "violations" of the PEP (some shared, some frowned upon by colleagues). I'd be very curious to read what other Pythonistas do and don't do in those regards.

The "79 characters per line" part is nonsense. Their very own example shows how unreadable code becomes when doing this:

class Rectangle(Blob):

    def __init__(self, width, height,
                 color='black', emphasis=None, highlight=0):
        if width == 0 and height == 0 and \
           color == 'red' and emphasis == 'strong' or \
           highlight > 100:
            raise ValueError("sorry, you lose")
        if width == 0 and height == 0 and (color == 'red' or
                                           emphasis is None):
            raise ValueError("I don't think so -- values are %s, %s" %
                             (width, height))
        Blob.__init__(self, width, height,
                      color, emphasis, highlight)

It's like try-
ing to read
a news arti-
cle written
like this.

80-column terminals havn't been a serious development environment for over a decade. When I do need to edit from a crippled 80x25 environment in a pinch, editor wrapping is a minor inconvenience; I'm not going to maim my code during normal development just to avoid that.

120 column wrapping is perfectly sensible for modern development, and I have no problem with 140. This guideline is obsolete and following it results in ugly, hard-to-read code.

PEP8 says to avoid "More than one space around an assignment (or other) operator to align it with another" and "never use more than one space" around math operators, but I don't follow this.

I often add "extraneous whitespace" when neighboring lines are related or very similar, but not quite the same:

search_start = (f - f_1/3) * n/fs
search_stop  = (f + f_1/3) * n/fs

b_lpf, a_lpf = filter(N, 2*pi*fc, 'low',  analog=True)
b_hpf, a_hpf = filter(N, 2*pi*fc, 'high', analog=True)

p[x >  1] =                         np.cosh(order * np.arccosh( x[x >  1]))
p[x < -1] = (1 - 2 * (order % 2)) * np.cosh(order * np.arccosh(-x[x < -1]))

b0 =  (1 + cos(w0))/2
b1 = -(1 + cos(w0))

Similarly, it's annoying that I get code style warnings for arrays of numbers formatted in the readable way that they are normally formatted by the library itself:

a = array([[-0.198,  0.248, -1.17 , -0.629,  1.378],
           [-1.315,  0.947, -0.736, -1.388,  0.389],
           [ 0.241, -0.98 ,  0.535,  0.951,  1.143],
           [-0.601,  1.286, -0.947,  0.037, -0.864],
           [ 0.178, -0.289, -1.037, -1.453, -0.369]])

This produces a bunch of E201 E202 E222 violations.

PEP8 would rather have it formatted it like this, apparently, because we can't ever have extra whitespace before commas or after brackets, even if it improves readability:

a = array([[-0.198, 0.248, -1.17, -0.629, 1.378],
           [-1.315, 0.947, -0.736, -1.388, 0.389],
           [0.241, -0.98, 0.535, 0.951, 1.143],
           [-0.601, 1.286, -0.947, 0.037, -0.864],
           [0.178, -0.289, -1.037, -1.453, -0.369]])

PEP8 says

Note that most importantly, the """ that ends a multiline docstring should be on a line by itself, and preferably preceded by a blank line, e.g.:
"""Return a foobang

Optional plotz says to frobnicate the bizbaz first.

"""

I find this rather bizarre, since it's just "extraneous whitespace" and treats opening quotations differently from closing quotations for no obvious reason.

A rationale is given is in PEP 257:

The BDFL recommends inserting a blank line between the last paragraph in a multi-line docstring and its closing quotes, placing the closing quotes on a line by themselves. This way, Emacs' fill-paragraph command can be used on it.

Emacs, really? Everyone should do weird things to cater to the idiosyncrasies of a particular command in a particular editing tool?

I also think it's weird to put the beginning of the docstring on the same line as the quotes (not required, but recommended), while insisting that the closing quotations be on their own line. I think this is more logical, and should be used for both single line and multi-line docstrings:

def foobang(bizbaz, plotz=None):
    """
    Return a foobang

    Optional plotz says to frobnicate the bizbaz first.
    """

    if plotz is not None:
        ...

Update: The bold part has been removed and now it just says to "place the closing quotes on a line by themselves", and that the "summary line may be on the same line as the opening quotes or on the next line".

What PEP 8 guidelines do you ignore, and which ones do you stick to? [closed]

Related

Recent Posts