Comment 8 for bug 1328169

True, this is like "_" unpacking no PEP8. I'm just asking for the feasibility of "_" to be acknowledged as the relative unwritten convention for "ignored assignment". Whether it benefits someone in its local conventions or not is up to them. Now it has to obviously not intrude against PEP8 or other conventions that might conflict with it, which at the moment I see internationalization and the case of aliasing gettext(). Both of them do not conflict with the check itself though. They conflict if sharing the approach between different use cases in the same code base, which is again purely a issue of local conventions (outside of PEP8, so no deal breaker conflict there).

As for "=" alignment; never intended to pass it as PEP8, on the contrary let mi state it clearly; it is not... I just rigorously use it to ease vertical reading of the code. It does not pose part or relevance on the original matter. Had just problems between what I expected to be displayed and what actually got displayed in the comment.

Now to my stance at this point;
Even though the view on this unofficial convention is split, this is one of the two or more faces to it. It does not conflict but it requires your effort to support. If it is not worth it in your eyes or if you think it is actually a bad thing, it is fine by me. It is certainly difficult to set a convention objectively, since it is inherently subjective in nature. It is like agreeing on taste of design or beauty... again, difficult and requires the tolerance to walk away. Which I'm more than willing to do. No more nagging ;).
On that note, please close this feature request if you consider it to be a "not to become".

Thank you for your efforts and ongoing work on pyflakes (which has been and will continue to be an incredibly useful tool for me). Also thank you for already supporting "_" in unpacking and iterations/list/dict comprehensions. And also for your time in this discussion.

Best wishes,
~arlias