Replies: 1 comment
-
I went ahead and checked for autopep8 parity in Ruff rules. These are all the missing autofixes:
|
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
0 replies
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
-
I was thinking recently about some discussions in #7310 concerning a general want to support multiple formatter styles.
A lot of black forks are already included thanks to a few options. But otherwise Ruff won't stray too far from Black in the short term as there's a clear focus and targeted userbase for conversion.
I recently realized that Autopep8 works more like an autofixer for existing rules than a dedicated formatter. And by that logic, Ruff can achieve parity (or improvement over ;) ) Autopep8 simply by including all the relevant autofixes in the linter portion. Claiming Autopep8 parity could help bring in more users who are still on the fence, without adding complexity to the formatter.
As a Ruff+Autopep8 user myself who isn't yet convinced by the Black-like style (although I like a lot of the tweaks and improvements Ruff has over it), I know I would love to be able to drop Autopep8 from my toolchain.
Anyway, what's the point of this topic?
pycodestyle
rules #2402 (Although Autopep8 has some non pycodestlye-related features https://pypi.org/project/autopep8/#features)Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions