Then end the debate by letting the PEP authors decide the return type, and write a paragraph explaining why the other options were rejected. It is not going to make a big difference.
On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 3:59 PM Thomas Kluyver <tho...@kluyver.me.uk> wrote: > On Mon, Aug 28, 2017, at 08:50 PM, Paul Moore wrote: > > My main motivation for wavering is that I thought agreeing to trust > > the backend would simplify many of the decisions, and it's immensely > > frustrating to me that we're still debating the same question in the > > "return None" thread. > > The difference I see with the "return None" question is that there we > have an alternative (return NotImplemented) which is just as simple for > both sides, but avoids the identified issue with a buggy backend. The > only argument there seems to be for using None is about semantics - and > that's not a great argument, because 'practicality beats purity'. > > With the questions over sdist/wheel consistency, there's a complexity > cost, for the spec and for frontends, in deciding that they can't. So > we're weighing a trade-off: do we force ourselves to resolve the > notimplemented question so that frontends can do sdist-wheel+fallback, > or do we leave it up to frontends and risk some bugs which we might > otherwise have prevented. > > Thomas > _______________________________________________ > Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig >
_______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig