On 11/1/05, Josiah Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
...
>
> I still consider it dead.
>"If the implementation is hard to explain, it's a bad idea."
It is sometimes true, but not always. It may mean two other things:
1. The one trying to explain is not talented enough.
2. The implementation i
> That's fine. I wish that you read my answer, think about it a little,
> and just tell me in a yes or a no if you still consider it dead. I
> think that I have answered all your questions, and I hope that at
> least others would be convinced by them, and that at the end my
> suggestion would be ac
On 11/1/05, Josiah Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
...
>
> I am an advocate for PEP 351. However, I am against your proposed
> implementation/variant of PEP 351 because I don't believe it ads enough
> to warrant the additional complication and overhead necessary for every
> object (even tuples
Noam Raphael <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 10/31/05, Josiah Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > About the users-changing-my-internal-data issue:
> ...
> > You can have a printout before it dies:
> > "I'm crashing your program because something attempted to modify a data
> > structure (here
