Sample
pyint-f44cd8ea668b-I13
Lower every eligible synchronous for loop to a while loop
Scores
| Method | Score | Scale |
|---|---|---|
| Posnett | 0 | 0–1; higher is more readable |
| Dorn | 0.179 | 0–1; higher is more readable |
| Mi | 0.518 | 0–1; higher is more readable |
| LLOC | 125 | Logical lines; fewer is more readable |
| DeepSeek V4 Pro | 16.33 | 0–20; mean of three runs |
| GPT-6.1 Sol | 15.33 | 0–20; mean of three runs |
| BTTF | 0.444 | 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. | 8124.307 | −268.102 |
| Source linesThe number of non-empty source lines. | 238 | +95.2 |
| Byte entropyHow varied the bytes in the source text are. Repeated bytes give a lower value; a more even mixture gives a higher value. | 4.395 | −6.592 |
Intercept 8.87 + feature contributions = -170.624 (log-odds).
Score = sigmoid(-170.624) = 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. | 239 | −7.426 |
| Indentation frequencyHow rapidly indentation changes from line to line. | 192 | +5.904 |
| Number layout frequencyHow rapidly the number of numeric values per line changes through the code. | 192 | −3.985 |
| Identifier layout (vertical)How rapidly the visual pattern of identifier characters changes from top to bottom. | 237.932 | +2.916 |
| Comment layout (horizontal)How rapidly the visual pattern of comment characters changes from left to right. | 86.234 | +0.587 |
| Operator visual areaThe share of the code’s visual area occupied by operators such as +, =, and *. | 0.053 | +0.432 |
| 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. | 86.958 | −0.018 |
Intercept 0.07 + feature contributions = -1.52 (log-odds).
Score = sigmoid(-1.52) = 0.179.
| Score | 0.518 |
|---|
| Score | 125 |
|---|
Run 1
This is well-structured, readable code with a clear class hierarchy and consistent patterns. The code organization is logical, with properties and methods grouped logically, and the class docstring explains its purpose. Nesting is reasonable; while a few conditionals exist, they are not deeply nested. The clarity of intent is high, with descriptive method names, helpful comments, and clear error messages. It is concise overall, though the `__import__('builtins')` repetition is awkward and would benefit from direct imports. Action granularity is good, mostly one action per line, though some list comprehensions are slightly complex. Reading flow is natural, with properties and methods arranged in a sensible order. Minor deductions for the inelegant `builtins` handling and slight verbosity in some methods, but overall it's highly readable and maintainable.
Run 2
The code is generally well-structured with clear separation of concerns, property methods, and docstrings that explain intent. It follows Django project conventions and keeps actions relatively granular. However, readability is reduced by inconsistent use of `__import__("builtins")` instead of natural Python iteration, which disrupts reading flow and adds unnecessary complexity. Some methods mix multiple responsibilities (e.g., `_set_spatial_filter` handles multiple types), and a few conditional blocks are moderately nested. The imports are clear, and method names are expressive. Overall, the code is readable but would benefit from simplifying the iteration patterns and reducing branching in helper methods.
Run 3
The code is generally well-structured with clear class organization, property decorators, and consistent docstrings. It follows Django/GDAL conventions effectively. However, readability suffers in a few areas: the `__iter__` and `_make_feature` methods use awkward `__import__('builtins')` calls instead of direct `iter()`/`next()`/`StopIteration` references, which obscures intent and disrupts flow. Some methods (e.g., `__getitem__`, `_make_feature`) have moderate nesting and branching. The code is concise overall, with one action per line in most places, but certain list comprehensions and exception handling blocks could be simplified. Naming is clear, and the spatial filter setter handles multiple input types logically. Minor improvements to iteration patterns and eliminating unnecessary import indirection would increase clarity.
Run 1
Code Structure: The class is logically organized into initialization, protocol methods, properties, and utility methods. Nesting: Mostly shallow, although manual iteration introduces unnecessary while/try/except nesting. Clarity of intent: Descriptive method names and useful docstrings explain the wrapper well; abbreviated C API names, inconsistent ptr/_ptr usage, and generic iterator names slightly obscure details. Code length: Most methods are concise, but repeated dynamic builtins imports and explicit iterator management are unnecessarily verbose compared with ordinary for loops. Action granularity: Statements generally perform one action per line, though nested API calls in comprehensions require extra parsing. Reading flow: Consistent formatting and section markers support natural navigation, but the unusual iteration patterns interrupt otherwise straightforward Python code.
Run 2
Code Structure: The class is logically organized into initialization, special methods, properties, and public operations. Nesting: Most methods are shallow, but manual iteration introduces unnecessary while/try/except nesting. Clarity of intent: Descriptive method names, docstrings, and comments explain the GIS wrapper well; generic iterator names and repeated dynamic builtins imports obscure otherwise simple loops. Code length: Most accessors are concise, but expanded iteration machinery and some redundant comments add avoidable length. Action granularity: Statements generally perform one action per line, although nested API calls compress several operations into single expressions. Reading flow: Consistent formatting and grouped functionality support natural reading, but unconventional iteration, mixed ptr/_ptr usage, and inconsistent naming interrupt the flow.
Run 3
Code Structure: The class is logically organized into initialization, protocol methods, properties, and utility methods. Nesting: Most methods are shallow, but manual iteration adds unnecessary while/try/except nesting. Clarity of intent: Descriptive method names, docstrings, and comments explain the GIS wrapper well; opaque C API calls, inconsistent ptr/_ptr usage, and generic iterator names reduce clarity. Code length: Most properties are concise, but repeated dynamic builtins imports and explicit iterator management unnecessarily expand simple loops. Action granularity: Statements generally perform one action per line, although nested API calls and comprehensions combine several operations. Reading flow: Grouping and consistent formatting support natural reading, but nonidiomatic iteration, redundant else branches, and inconsistent naming interrupt it. Overall, readable and well documented, with conspicuous avoidable complexity in iteration.