On 11 October 2017 at 21:58, Koos Zevenhoven wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 7:46 AM, Steve Dower
> wrote:
>
>> Nick: “I like Yury's example for this, which is that the following two
>> examples are currently semantically equivalent, and we want to preserve
>> that equivalence:
>>
>>
>>
>>
On 11Oct2017 0458, Koos Zevenhoven wrote:
Exactly. You did say it less politely than I did, but this is exactly
how I thought about it. And I'm not sure people got it the first time.
Yes, perhaps a little harsh. However, if I released a refactoring tool
that moved function calls that far, peo
On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 7:46 AM, Steve Dower wrote:
> Nick: “I like Yury's example for this, which is that the following two
> examples are currently semantically equivalent, and we want to preserve
> that equivalence:
>
>
>
> with decimal.localcontext() as ctx:
>
> ctc.prex = 30
>
>
On 11 October 2017 at 02:52, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> I think we really need to do more soul-searching before we decide that a
> much more complex semantics and implementation is worth it to maintain
> backwards compatibility for leaking in via next().
>
As a less-contrived example, consider co
