On Wed, Oct 27, 2021 at 8:20 PM Antoon Pardon <antoon.par...@vub.be> wrote: > > > > Op 27/10/2021 om 10:49 schreef Chris Angelico: > > On Wed, Oct 27, 2021 at 7:46 PM Antoon Pardon <antoon.par...@vub.be> wrote: > >>> So if you want this added, show a use-case that makes it look way > >>> better than the alternatives (including a generator, a mid-loop break, > >>> etc). > >> Way better according to which criteria? IMO to realy make something like > >> this you would need a one and a half loop. But although at some time there > >> was a strong indication it would get included, the idea was eventually > >> discarted. > >> > >> So I'll argue for incremental better if I see a possibility. A few > >> incremental > >> betters can eventually result in something that is way better than the > >> original. > > According to any criteria you like. Remember, the onus is not on the > > status quo to justify itself; the onus is on someone who wants to make > > a change. > > Then don't answer that I can justify it according to any criteria I like. > It will have to be done according to criteria that are important to the > people who like the status quo. That it will be justified according to > criteria I like, will be totally unimportant. > > > Demonstrate that a change is needed by showing the benefits. > > Nothing is needed. But the walrus operator wasn't needed either. Asking to > show something is needed is putting a burden on who wants to advocate for > this, that isn't put on others. >
You can argue the word "need" all you like, but the fact remains that YOU want a change, so YOU have to convince people of the benefits. ChrisA -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list