Robert Collins writes:
> What I am doing is rejecting the argument that because we can't fix
> every mis-use users might make, we therefore should not fix the cases
> where we can fix it.
This involves a value judgment, every time a new fix is proposed, as
to whether it's a mis-use that deserves fixing or a permitted-to-
consenting-adults behavior. IMO, it's a bad idea to institutionalize
that kind of bikeshedding, especially when such "fixes" involve
overriding user choices that are permitted everywhere else.
Arbitrary choices that *some* users want to be protected from ("stop
me before I 'assret' again!") belong in linters, not in Python or the
stdlib.
To be frank, I think you have the Pythonic approach exactly backwards
here (though I am no authority on Pythonicity). ISTM that in general
Python takes the attitude that if a particular "mis-use" seems to be
common, then we should figure out what it is about Python that
encourages that "mistake", or makes an otherwise arbitrary user choice
into a "mistake", and fix Python -- not restrict users.
Of course that's not always possible, but that's the first choice
AIUI.
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
