Hendrik van Rooyen wrote: > "Christian Heimes" <lis....s.de> wrote: > >> John Nagle wrote >>> If "bytes", a new keyword, works differently in 2.6 and 3.0, that was >>> really >>> dumb. There's no old code using "bytes". So converting code to 2.6 means >>> it has to be converted AGAIN for 3.0. That's a good reason to ignore >>> 2.6 as >>> defective. >> Please don't call something dumb that you don't fully understand. It's >> offenses the people who have spent lots of time developing Python -- >> personal, unpaid and voluntary time! > > Crying out; "Please do not criticise me, I am doing it for free!" does > not justify delivering sub standard work - that is the nature of the > open source process - if you lift your head and say or do something, > there are bound to be some objections - some thoughtful and valid, > and others merely carping. Being sensitive about it serves no purpose.
There are proper and polites way to criticize somebody or something -- it's called constructive criticism -- and there are offensive ways. I hope we can all agree that calling something dumb without good reason is impolite. The bytes alias does exactly what it was designed for -- and documented, too. It just doesn't do what somebody expects it to do. Is this really sub standard? I don't think so! Christian -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list