Hello, On Mon, 30 Nov 2020 12:56:59 +1300 Greg Ewing <greg.ew...@canterbury.ac.nz> wrote:
> On 29/11/20 11:02 pm, Paul Sokolovsky wrote: > > It will be much more obvious if there's a general (standalone) > > "const", > > I don't think it will. There's nothing about the problem > that points towards constness as a solution, so it doesn't > matter how many other places in the language "const" appears. As was mentioned, there's no replacement for reading docs/tutorials. And all that applies the same to "for new". > And even if you're told about it, you need two or three steps > of reasoning to understand *why* it solves the problem. > > > that's why I'm saying we can't really consider "for const" without > > just "const" > > I agree with that. Good. > > > And it's "pretty obvious" to someone who considered various choices > > and saw pieces falling into their places. Also might be pretty > > obvious for someone who used other languages. > > I strongly suspect it's something that's obvious only in > hindsight. The same for "for new". But at least "for const" fits better with other usages of "const", including in other languages (so much less of NIH syndrome). > > -- > Greg [] -- Best regards, Paul mailto:pmis...@gmail.com _______________________________________________ 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/ZHPFYSEICSXEFNXACLDWZL34UFP7WUHL/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
