On 2021-12-08 09:59, Chris Angelico wrote:
On Thu, Dec 9, 2021 at 4:55 AM Stephen J. Turnbull
<stephenjturnb...@gmail.com> wrote:
But the "good idea" of general deferreds is only marginally relevant
to our -1s. It's those -1s that constitute the main issue for Chris,
since they're a noisy signal that the SC might think as we do.
Please explain to me *exactly* what your arguments against the current
proposal are. At the moment, I am extremely confused as to what people
actually object to, and there's endless mischaracterization and
accusation happening.
Can we actually figure out what people are really saying, and what the
problems with this proposal are?
There is one other that I forgot to include in my last message
5. Miscellaneous wrinkles. By this I mean the various sub-discussions
about things like what order the late and early defaults should be
evaluated in. This is a sort of second-order objection for me, because
the objections I gave in my previous message are enough for me to reject
the proposal. But even assuming I agreed with the broad outlines, these
subsidiary concerns leave enough room for confusion that I would not
endorse the proposal. In other words there are too many devils in the
details that I feel would lead to difficult-to-reason-about code and
traps for the unwary.
--
Brendan Barnwell
"Do not follow where the path may lead. Go, instead, where there is no
path, and leave a trail."
--author unknown
_______________________________________________
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/LDUTKWR3PCO3U67VWPAP7VORDJCWMXA2/
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
