Choose a sensible naming/numbering scheme for errors

[suchow]

The convention is a capital letter and a 3 digit code. For example, pep257 uses codes like D100, D302, etc. It might be nice for us to use a 3-letter code for the source of the advice and a 3-digit code for the specific check, e.g., DFW201. The numeric codes can then be organized across sources according to higher-level categories of errors. For example, 100-level codes might be for overused words, phrases, idioms, symbols, and grammatical structures. The 200-level codes might be for nonsensical structures, such as DFW's comparing uncomparables. This fails if a particular author has > 99 pieces of advice of a particular kind, but if we run into that problem, then we're doing great. If that happens it might also suggest that our errors could use some compression (e.g., by merging all the overused single words into one check).

The URLs it leads to are nice and compact, too: http://lifelinter.com/DFW201.