<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"><channel><title>Disqus - Latest Comments for Paul Hildebrandt</title><link>http://disqus.com/people/b023dbe3b6853a59f8282a9ee57667f7/</link><description></description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Wed, 25 Mar 2009 11:07:04 -0000</lastBuildDate><item><title>Re: Do you use an python code analyzer?</title><link>http://pyjesse.disqus.com/do_you_use_an_python_code_analyzer/#comment-84923</link><description>We require developers to pylint their code on our project.  I tried pycheck and pylint and liked pylint better.  I like PEP8.py but I don't think I could get the guys here to use it.  I do use Eclipse+PyDev (the commercial version, well worth the money).  I still run pylint alongside it's checkers.  I want to starting running figleaf to check out coverage on our unittest but I just haven't started that yet.</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Paul Hildebrandt</dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 17 Jan 2008 22:37:17 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Pythoscope: Unit test generation for Python.</title><link>http://pyjesse.disqus.com/pythoscope_unit_test_generation_for_python/#comment-1803280</link><description>Cool, the project hasn't been out that long and people are already interested.  Thanks for blogging about it and posting a test Jesse.   Jean-Paul, it looks like pythoscope doesn't handle nested classes.  I guess that's okay for a 0.2.1 release.  I've entered a bug on lunchpad:&lt;br&gt;&lt;a href="https://bugs.launchpad.net/pythoscope/+bug/260924" rel="nofollow"&gt;https://bugs.launchpad.net/pythoscope/+bug/260924&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;With a simplified test case.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Paul</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Paul Hildebrandt</dc:creator><pubDate>Sun, 24 Aug 2008 15:24:22 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Now I have a reason to use staticmethod</title><link>http://tplus1.disqus.com/now_i_have_a_reason_to_use_staticmethod/#comment-2026924</link><description>Nice post.  I was wondering about some good uses for staticmethod. &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Thanks,&lt;br&gt;Paul</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Paul Hildebrandt</dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 03 Sep 2008 01:24:22 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Instead of setting instance attributes within __init__</title><link>http://tplus1.disqus.com/instead_of_setting_instance_attributes_within___init__/#comment-7493835</link><description>Seems like a lot of mechanism.  If the goal is to reduce the size of __init__ why not use a function like &lt;br&gt;def __init_vars(self):&lt;br&gt;    self.a=1&lt;br&gt;    self.b=2&lt;br&gt;and call that from the __init__ function.  &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;In both cases I would worry about tools not understanding what is going on.  Pulling the variable initialization out of the __init__ function will fool programs like pylint and doxygen.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;I would probably just create sections in my __init__ like:&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;def __init(self):&lt;br&gt;    #&lt;br&gt;    # Variable &lt;br&gt;    #&lt;br&gt;    self.a=1&lt;br&gt;    self.b=2&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;    #&lt;br&gt;    # Object setup&lt;br&gt;    #&lt;br&gt;    do interesting stuff here&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;But then again I do a lot of support programming and I like boring simple programs.   They make it easier for me to understand.</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Paul Hildebrandt</dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 25 Mar 2009 11:07:04 -0000</pubDate></item></channel></rss>