On Thu, 29 Aug 2019 at 14:21, Andrew Barnert <abarn...@yahoo.com> wrote: > You can’t avoid tradeoffs by trying to come up with a rule that makes > language decisions automatically. (If you could, why would this list even > exist?) The closest thing you can get to that is the vague and > self-contradictory and facetious but still useful Zen.
Sorry, I wasn't trying to imply that you could. Just that choosing to implement some, but not all, possible literal affixes on a case by case basis was a valid language design option, and one that is taken in many cases. Your statement > Think about it this way; assuming f and frac and dec and re and sql and so on > are useful, out options are: > > 1) people don’t get a useful feature > 2) we add user-defined affixes > 3) we add all of these as builtin affixes > > While #3 theoretically isn’t impossible, it’s wildly implausible, and > probably a bad idea to boot, so the realistic choice is between 1 and 2. seemed to imply that you thought it was an "all or nothing" choice. My apologies if I misunderstood your point. Paul _______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list -- python-ideas@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-ideas-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-ideas.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-ideas@python.org/message/3KOQHR5TSNVLCVLOZNGXWWSRW5UHYWLX/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
