2 ms·
I would have thought it would be a no-brainer to just ban it and insist on an explicit + operator. I'm pretty surprised that issue was so flippantly closed.
by mikepurvis 5y ago
I would have thought it would be a no-brainer to just ban it and insist on an explicit + operator. I'm pretty surprised that issue was so flippantly closed.
- thaumasiotes 5y ago> I would have thought it would be a no-brainer to just ban it and insist on an explicit + operator. Maybe as a matter of linting. As a matter of language design, I think + for string concatenation is a big mistake; using different symbols for numeric addition and string concatenation is something Perl got right.
- mikepurvis 5y agoYes, I meant as a matter of linting. I can understand the arguments being different for the language as a whole, particularly when legacy compatibility is a consideration. But my impression using pylint is that its default settings are wildly opinionated, hence the surprise that this wouldn't have fallen under that umbrella.
- ReleaseCandidat 5y agoThe PR has been merged (for lists and tuples and sets only). https://github.com/PyCQA/pylint/pull/1655 https://github.com/PyCQA/pylint/pull/1655