Ned Batchelder

I think this is now faster than traditional coverage. I will close this issue, let me know if I was wrong.

*Original comment by* **Toshio Kuratomi (Bitbucket: [toshio](https://bitbucket.org/toshio), GitHub: [toshio](https://github.com/toshio))** ---------------------------------------- (Just FYI: I am using exclude_lines similar to jayvdb, I want to exclude lines that can only run on Python2...

*Original comment by* **Toshio Kuratomi (Bitbucket: [toshio](https://bitbucket.org/toshio), GitHub: [toshio](https://github.com/toshio))** ---------------------------------------- Looking at the code handling exclusions, it appears that exclusions are recorded and tracked all the way up to Coverage.Analysis...

Issue #619 was marked as a duplicate of this issue.

*Original comment by* **Andrei Fokau (Bitbucket: [andreif](https://bitbucket.org/andreif), GitHub: [andreif](https://github.com/andreif))** ---------------------------------------- Wonderful idea, all `exclude_lines` number should be reported. Maybe even omitted `*.py` files as well.

*Original comment by* **John Vandenberg (Bitbucket: [jayvdb](https://bitbucket.org/jayvdb), GitHub: [jayvdb](https://github.com/jayvdb))** ---------------------------------------- In my experience, `#pragma: no cover` is most often used for OS specific paths. These proposed alerts would be a...

Hmm, I'm not sure I approve of pragma'ing away code that you intend to cover eventually, but it's an interesting idea to alert the user to unneeded pragmas.

Sorry, nothing new has happened.

Thinking about this more, there's a subtlety here. Let's say I have some code that is only for Windows and I only run my tests on Linux. I might put...

> I am not sure I understand your point about the false-positives warnings. If people don't care whether a line is covered or not but this line is actually covered,...