Running the Python style guide checker
[`pep8`](https://pypi.python.org/pypi/pep8) on the Python code headers
in this repository results in the following error being emitted:
$ pep8 utils/build-script
utils/build-script:1:1: E265 block comment should start with '# '
utils/build-script:3:1: E266 too many leading '#' for block comment
utils/build-script:5:1: E266 too many leading '#' for block comment
utils/build-script:6:1: E266 too many leading '#' for block comment
utils/build-script:8:1: E266 too many leading '#' for block comment
utils/build-script:9:1: E266 too many leading '#' for block comment
utils/build-script:11:1: E265 block comment should start with '# '
utils/build-script:11:80: E501 line too long (80 > 79 characters)
The problem is that the code header used in most Python files in the
repository:
1. Do not place a space in between `#` and the rest of the comment.
2. Contains some lines that just barely exceed the recommend length
limit.
In addition, not all code headers in the repository follow the same
template.
This commit moves all Python code headers to the following template:
# subfolder/file_name.py - Very brief description -*- python -*--
#
# This source file is part of the Swift.org open source project
#
# Copyright (c) 2014 - 2015 Apple Inc. and the Swift project authors
# Licensed under Apache License v2.0 with Runtime Library Exception
#
# See http://swift.org/LICENSE.txt for license information
# See http://swift.org/CONTRIBUTORS.txt for the list of Swift project authors
#
# -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
#
# This file contains stuff that I am describing here in the header and will
# be sure to keep up to date.
#
# ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fixes:
* Unused import
* Redundant backslash
* Use of discouraged if not x in y
* Use of deprecated form of raising exceptions
Follow-up to PR #655 as requested by @gribozavr
(libraries now)
It has been generally agreed that we need to do this reorg, and now
seems like the perfect time. Some major pass reorganization is in the
works.
This does not have to be the final word on the matter. The consensus
among those working on the code is that it's much better than what we
had and a better starting point for future bike shedding.
Note that the previous organization was designed to allow separate
analysis and optimization libraries. It turns out this is an
artificial distinction and not an important goal.
(Headers first)
It has been generally agreed that we need to do this reorg, and now
seems like the perfect time. Some major pass reorganization is in the
works.
This does not have to be the final word on the matter. The consensus
among those working on the code is that it's much better than what we
had and a better starting point for future bike shedding.
Note that the previous organization was designed to allow separate
analysis and optimization libraries. It turns out this is an
artificial distinction and not an important goal.
Conventionally, code completion results are matched with user input solely by
names. However, names are limited in expressiveness. From this comments, we start to
decorate code completion results with @keywords fields extracted from Clang doc comments.
These fields are added by API authors to comment the decl with information that
is not manifested clear enough through names. Code completion users' typing of the
keyword leads to the corresponding code completion results being selected as well.
Keywords can be arbitrarily long and can be multiple.
For instance, a function called "index()" has "@keyword find" in its doc comment.
Users' typing of "find" leads to "index()" being selected in the code completion list.
The code goes into its own sub-tree under 'tools' but tests go under 'test',
so that running 'check-swift' will also run all the SourceKit tests.
SourceKit is disabled on non-darwin platforms.
