Possible overlap between SIM300 and PLC2201

[rabelux]

From my understanding the rules C2201 (PLC2201 in ruff) and SIM300 are pretty much the same.
If that's the case I'd suggest to drop one in favour of the other.

PLC2201 got introduced in #1023, SIM300 in #1539.

[charliermarsh]

Yeah I agree with this. My gut reaction is to remove PLC2201. In the future, we should be able to map rules to multiple codes for compatibility purposes (see, e.g., #1941 which lays the foundation), although there are some questions to answer around how that works with --select ALL, # noqa , etc.

[rabelux]

I'd also prefer to keep SIM300.

Regarding #1941:
I hope the README stays as concise as it is currently? I really love the fact that all error codes are listed in a single spot and I can just ctrl+f to look for codes or phrases (like "concatenation" for example) and can almost expect to not find duplicates.

Maybe introduce a column like "aliases" in the suppurted rules section and also treat these codes as aliases? Meaning noqa statements and config files may mention other codes but ruff tracks them down to its natively known and implemented error codes. Evaluating --select ALL would only look in implemented error codes, not in aliases.

[charliermarsh]

These rules are actually slightly different because the Pylint rule flags any comparison (e.g., i >= 5).

[charliermarsh]

I'll probably extend SIM300 to flag those cases too.