On Sat, Feb 01, 2014 at 10:20:24PM +1000, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> On 1 February 2014 16:04, Ethan Furman <[email protected]> wrote:
> > So we only fix bugs that don't work at all? By which I mean, if the
> > interpreter doesn't crash, we don't fix it?
>
> No, we make a judgment call based on the severity and likelihood of
> encountering the bug, the consequences of encountering it, and the
> difficulty of working around it after you *do* encounter it.
Nice summary Nick, however there is one slight error:
> In this case:
>
> * Likelihood: low (using keyword arguments with simple APIs like this
> is not a common idiom, and you have to specifically pass -1 to trigger
> misbehaviour)
It's not just -1, its any negative value:
py> from itertools import repeat
py> it = repeat('a', -17) # Correct.
py> next(it)
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module>
StopIteration
py> it = repeat('a', times=-17) # Bug, repeats forever.
py> next(it)
'a'
[...]
> Conclusion:
>
> * add the new, supported feature that provides equivalent
> functionality (accepting None) in 3.5
>
> * deprecate the problematic behaviour in 3.5 and then start treating
> it as equivalent to the positional argument handling in 3.6+
Seems reasonable to me.
Thanks again for the nice summary.
--
Steven
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
