Sample
pyint-71226d472070-I12
Inline all eligible single-use intermediate local variables
Scores
| Method | Score | Scale |
|---|---|---|
| Posnett | 0 | 0–1; higher is more readable |
| Dorn | 0.165 | 0–1; higher is more readable |
| Mi | 0.518 | 0–1; higher is more readable |
| LLOC | 115 | Logical lines; fewer is more readable |
| DeepSeek V4 Pro | 17 | 0–20; mean of three runs |
| GPT-6.1 Sol | 17 | 0–20; mean of three runs |
| BTTF | 0.363 | 0–1; higher is more readable |
Views
Loading feature diagnosis…
Source regions
Feature contributions
Feature contributions
| Feature | Value | Contribution (log-odds) |
|---|---|---|
| Halstead volumeHow much symbolic information the code contains. It combines the total number of operators and values with the number of distinct ones. | 7569.038 | −249.778 |
| Source linesThe number of non-empty source lines. | 228 | +91.2 |
| Byte entropyHow varied the bytes in the source text are. Repeated bytes give a lower value; a more even mixture gives a higher value. | 4.402 | −6.604 |
Intercept 8.87 + feature contributions = -156.312 (log-odds).
Score = sigmoid(-156.312) = 0.
Feature contributions
| Feature | Value | Contribution (log-odds) |
|---|---|---|
| Comment layout frequencyHow frequently the layout switches between lines containing only comments or whitespace and lines containing code. | 229 | −7.072 |
| Indentation frequencyHow rapidly indentation changes from line to line. | 181 | +5.523 |
| Number layout frequencyHow rapidly the number of numeric values per line changes through the code. | 181 | −3.733 |
| Identifier layout (vertical)How rapidly the visual pattern of identifier characters changes from top to bottom. | 227.938 | +2.776 |
| Comment layout (horizontal)How rapidly the visual pattern of comment characters changes from left to right. | 94.956 | +0.728 |
| Operator visual areaThe share of the code’s visual area occupied by operators such as +, =, and *. | 0.052 | +0.44 |
| Identifier layout (horizontal)How rapidly the visual pattern of identifier characters changes from left to right. It measures spatial frequency, not the meaning of the names. | 94.961 | −0.357 |
Intercept 0.07 + feature contributions = -1.624 (log-odds).
Score = sigmoid(-1.624) = 0.165.
| Score | 0.518 |
|---|
| Score | 115 |
|---|
Run 1
The code is highly readable with clear structure, logical organization, and consistent patterns. The class is well-documented with descriptive docstrings and comments that explain non-obvious behavior. The code is flat with minimal nesting, using early returns and clear conditional branches. Each method has a clear single purpose, and the action granularity is appropriate—one action per line in most cases. The reading flow is natural, moving from initialization to core methods, then properties, and finally utility methods. The code length is appropriate for the functionality, though some property methods are slightly repetitive. Minor issues include a few overly long lines and some redundant comments (e.g., '# Random access isn't supported, have to increment through'), but overall this is a well-structured, maintainable implementation.
Run 2
The code is well-structured with clear class organization, logical imports, and a cohesive Layer wrapper around OGR. Methods are appropriately grouped with comments and docstrings, with sensible separation of dunder, property, and method sections. Nesting is minimal, mostly single-level conditionals and list comprehensions. Intent is clear throughout—each method has a focused purpose and descriptive naming. Action granularity is appropriate, with one main operation per line. However, a few areas slightly reduce readability: some long lines exceed typical length, especially in the fields property and spatial filter method, and methods like _make_feature and _set_spatial_filter have moderate conditional complexity. The code is verbose in places, and certain expressions mix multiple nested calls, which can be harder to parse. Overall, it is highly readable but not perfect.
Run 3
The code is well-structured and readable. It uses clear class methods, consistent docstrings, and logical property groupings separated by comments. Nesting is minimal, and most methods are short with a single responsibility. Intent is clear, especially in methods like _make_feature, which explains fallback behavior. The use of helper methods and list comprehensions keeps the code concise. Some methods are slightly long, but they remain flat and easy to follow. Reading flow is natural, with properties grouped together and methods following. Minor issues include a slightly redundant blank line in the name property and a long conditional in _set_spatial_filter, but overall it is highly readable.
Run 1
Code Structure: The class is logically organized into initialization, Python protocol methods, properties, and layer operations, with helpful section markers. Nesting: Most methods are flat; indexing, feature lookup, and filter validation have modest, manageable nesting. Clarity of intent: Descriptive method names, docstrings, and explanatory comments make responsibilities clear, though abbreviated C API names and mixed ptr/_ptr usage require extra attention. Code length: The class is substantial but consists mostly of short, focused methods; some repetitive property implementations and redundant comments add bulk. Action granularity: Statements generally perform one action, although nested API calls and comprehensions compress several transformations into individual expressions. Reading flow: Method grouping and consistent patterns support natural reading. Stray blank lines, unnecessary parentheses, one long return statement, and minor docstring errors slightly disrupt polish.
Run 2
Code Structure: The class is logically organized into initialization, Python protocol methods, properties, and layer operations, with focused helpers. Nesting: Mostly shallow; indexing, feature lookup, and spatial filtering introduce only modest branching. Clarity of intent: Descriptive method names, docstrings, and explanatory comments make the wrapper's purpose clear, though abbreviated C API names and inconsistent ptr/_ptr usage require extra attention. Code length: Methods are concise, but repetitive property implementations and some redundant comments add bulk. Action granularity: Statements generally perform one action each; nested API calls and comprehensions occasionally combine several transformations. Reading flow: Organization and consistent method patterns support natural reading, with minor distractions from unnecessary parentheses, stray blank lines, a long return statement, and small documentation errors.
Run 3
Code Structure: Well-organized class with initialization, protocol methods, grouped properties, and utility methods. Nesting: Mostly shallow; feature lookup and spatial-filter validation introduce manageable nested branches. Clarity of intent: Descriptive method names, docstrings, and comments explain behavior and ownership, although abbreviated C API names and inconsistent ptr/_ptr usage require extra attention. Code length: Methods are generally concise, but repetitive field-access properties and some redundant comments add length. Action granularity: Most statements perform one clear action; nested API calls and comprehensions occasionally combine several operations. Reading flow: Logical ordering and consistent patterns make navigation straightforward. Minor distractions include unnecessary parentheses, stray blank lines, a long return statement, docstring typos, and naming a parameter filter, which shadows a built-in.