Author Unit03
Recipients Unit03, berker.peksag, martin.panter, maurosr,, python-dev, r.david.murray, serhiy.storchaka, taddeimania
Date 2015-06-24.23:22:34
SpamBayes Score -1.0
Marked as misclassified Yes
Message-id <>
> Nice work with the check__all__() function.

Thank you! :)

> I left some comments on Reitveld. Also, it currently ignores items satisfying either of these checks:
> * isinstance(module_object, types.ModuleType)
> * getattr(module_object, '__module__', None) not in name_of_module
> The first is largely redundant with the second, because module objects don’t have a __module__ attribute. However I wonder if it would be better to drop the second check and just rely on the ModuleType check, making the test stricter. Or would this be too annoying in some cases (requiring a huge blacklist)? If so, maybe make the name_of_module checking optional.

Could you please elaborate on "making the test stricter"?

I'd go with the first check + optional name_of_module. With second one alone, all freshly added test__all__ tests would need additional names in blacklists - not huge ones, but they would otherwise be unnecessary.
I've amended the patches and I'm waiting for review.

I've also thought of not only making name_of_module param optional, but to make it extra_names_of_module (so such param would be added to module.__name__ used in "getattr(module_object, '__module__', None) in name of module" check. It would account for less typing in general (module.__name__ occurs in almost all cases), but also less explicity. What do you think?
Date User Action Args
2015-06-24 23:22:35Unit03setrecipients: + Unit03, r.david.murray, python-dev, berker.peksag, martin.panter, serhiy.storchaka,, maurosr, taddeimania
2015-06-24 23:22:35Unit03setmessageid: <>
2015-06-24 23:22:35Unit03linkissue23883 messages
2015-06-24 23:22:35Unit03create