On Fri, Aug 03, 2018 at 06:30:25AM -0700, Eric Fahlgren wrote: > After looking at the code a bit more, I agree, we've uncovered a bug in the > stdlib and the null coalescing version actually fixes it. [...] > But! We are not here to talk about bugs in the email package, this > discussion is about PEP 505, which means to me that the example is a bug in > the PEP.
On the contrary! It strongly suggests to me that None-aware operators, or at least this one, makes it *easier* to write correct code than incorrect code. If your analysis that the email package is buggy is correct, this is a strong example in favour of the none-aware operator. > In my view, the before and after examples should have identical > results, unless there is some very clear and thorough discussion > accompanying the example as to why they are different and more importantly, > why the "after" version is better or worse. In this light, the example > certainly needs a lot of work. It needs some work. Something like "Here's an example in the standard library. On converting it to none-aware version, we realised the std lib version is buggy, because ...". A couple of sentences. -- Steve _______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list Python-ideas@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
