Sample
pyint-324dd5ef5c38-I01
Remove comments and docstrings
Scores
| Method | Score | Scale |
|---|---|---|
| Posnett | 0 | 0–1; higher is more readable |
| Dorn | 0.078 | 0–1; higher is more readable |
| Mi | 0.71 | 0–1; higher is more readable |
| LLOC | 69 | Logical lines; fewer is more readable |
| DeepSeek V4 Pro | 8 | 0–20; mean of three runs |
| GPT-6.1 Sol | 14 | 0–20; mean of three runs |
| BTTF | 0.399 | 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. | 5471.751 | −180.568 |
| Source linesThe number of non-empty source lines. | 214 | +85.6 |
| Byte entropyHow varied the bytes in the source text are. Repeated bytes give a lower value; a more even mixture gives a higher value. | 4.08 | −6.12 |
Intercept 8.87 + feature contributions = -92.218 (log-odds).
Score = sigmoid(-92.218) = 0.
Feature contributions
| Feature | Value | Contribution (log-odds) |
|---|---|---|
| Indentation frequencyHow rapidly indentation changes from line to line. | 214 | +6.665 |
| Comment layout frequencyHow frequently the layout switches between lines containing only comments or whitespace and lines containing code. | 215 | −6.576 |
| Number layout frequencyHow rapidly the number of numeric values per line changes through the code. | 214 | −4.49 |
| Identifier layout (vertical)How rapidly the visual pattern of identifier characters changes from top to bottom. | 213.946 | +2.581 |
| Comment layout (horizontal)How rapidly the visual pattern of comment characters changes from left to right. | 0 | −0.804 |
| Operator visual areaThe share of the code’s visual area occupied by operators such as +, =, and *. | 0.069 | +0.276 |
| 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. | 90.958 | −0.187 |
Intercept 0.07 + feature contributions = -2.466 (log-odds).
Score = sigmoid(-2.466) = 0.078.
| Score | 0.71 |
|---|
| Score | 69 |
|---|
Run 1
The code is largely unreadable due to poor structure and presentation. It contains excessive blank lines and stray indentation (e.g., lines containing only spaces) that disrupt the visual flow. While the class has a clear purpose (attribute management), the __init__ method is overly long and performs many similar assignments, hurting action granularity and clarity. Nesting is minimal, but the reading flow is broken by inconsistent formatting. The code relies on single-letter or cryptic helpers (ca) and repeated bound_setattr calls without explanatory context. There is no immediate documentation for complex logic like pickle state handling. Length is verbose for what it does, and intent gets lost in the formatting noise and repetitive patterns.
Run 2
The code has some positive attributes like clear naming conventions, use of type hints, and logical grouping of related parameters, but several issues hurt readability. There are excessive blank lines in the class definition (lines 65-68) that break flow. The __init__ method has a very long parameter list (over 20 parameters), making it difficult to understand what each argument does without documentation. Many conditional expressions are nested within function calls (e.g., bound_setattr for metadata), reducing clarity. The from_counting_attr method contains complex conditional logic with inline comments that feel cluttered. Comments like '# noqa' and ellipsis placeholders indicate incomplete/unclear documentation. The code mixes multiple actions per line in places and has inconsistent vertical spacing. While the overall structure is organized (clear sections for different attribute properties), the parameter count and some complex expressions push the readability score down.
Run 3
The code exhibits mixed readability. The class structure is logical, with clear separation via __slots__ and well-defined methods. However, there are several issues: excessive comments with blank or placeholder content create visual noise, method names like _determine_attrib_eq_order and _default_init_alias_for are unclear without context, and the __init__ method has too many parameters (over 20) making it difficult to follow. The use of bound_setattr reduces nesting but adds abstract indirection. Magic methods like __getstate__ and __setstate__ contain complex logic with multiple conditional paths. While each line generally performs one action, the overall flow is disrupted by scattered comments and the need to mentally track many attributes. The code is maintainable with effort but not easily scannable for newcomers.
Run 1
Code Structure: Methods logically separate initialization, conversion, copying, serialization, and internal updates, though excessive blank lines weaken organization. Nesting: Mostly flat, with only shallow conditionals and loops. Clarity of intent: Method and field names generally convey purpose, but missing documentation, unexplained low-level setattr binding, external helpers, and the long positional constructor call require additional context. Code length: Reasonable for the functionality, although repetitive assignments and whitespace add bulk. Action granularity: Most statements perform one action, making individual operations easy to follow; the initial four-value assignment is slightly denser. Reading flow: Method boundaries and consistent assignment patterns support sequential reading, but awkward multiline expressions, positional argument mapping, and compatibility logic interrupt the flow.
Run 2
Code Structure: Methods logically separate initialization, conversion, copying, serialization, and attribute updates, though unrelated imports and excessive blank lines add clutter. Nesting: Mostly shallow, with straightforward conditionals and one simple loop. Clarity of intent: Descriptive method and field names help, but missing documentation, external helper dependencies, names that shadow built-ins, and a long positional constructor call obscure behavior. Code length: Repetitive assignments largely reflect the attribute model, but awkward spacing and multiline expressions make the snippet longer than necessary. Action granularity: Statements generally perform one action per line, making operations easy to follow. Reading flow: Method organization is natural, but the numerous constructor parameters, positional argument mapping, and alias compatibility logic require careful cross-referencing.
Run 3
Code Structure: Methods logically separate initialization, conversion, evolution, serialization, and assignment, though numerous imports and external helpers add context overhead. Nesting: Mostly flat, with shallow conditionals and one straightforward loop. Clarity of intent: Descriptive method and attribute names help, but missing documentation, private dependencies, shadowed built-in names, and a long positional constructor call obscure details. Code length: Repeated attribute assignments are explicit but verbose; excessive blank lines add visual noise. Action granularity: Generally one operation per line, making individual steps easy to follow. Reading flow: Method organization is natural, but awkward expression wrapping, conditional expressions inside calls, and the many positional arguments interrupt scanning.