I am very disappointed with the responses to this thread. We have
mockery, dismissiveness, and even insinuations about OP's
psychological health. Whether or not OP is a troll, and whether or not
OP's idea has merit, that kind of response is unnecessary and
unhelpful.
(While I lean toward OP being
Chris Barker via Python-ideas wrote:
"efficient is better than inefficient" kind of goes without saying...
Perhaps we should just replace the entire Zen with
"Good is better than bad." Insert your own subjective
ideas on what constitutes "good" and "bad" and you're
set to go. :-)
--
Greg
_
>> Therefore it's not redundant to subclass *Warning for namespacing alone.
>
> Not redundant? You mean you must subclass? In that case my concern stands.
An unfortunate typo, meant "it's redundant".
> And what does that match against? The module name of the exception type right?
It matches
On Sat, Sep 15, 2018 at 7:38 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> To be fair, in my
> > experience this has been a source of confusion to many Python
> > newcomers, as the notion of "beauty", as with any other value
> > judgment, is highly relative to the subject evaluating it.
Indeed is *is* subjective
Hi David Maertz and Michael Lee,
Thank you for raising the points. Please let me respond to your comments in
separation. Please let me know if I missed or misunderstood anything.
*Assertions versus contracts.* David wrote:
> I'm afraid that in reading the examples provided it is difficulties for
On Fri, 14 Sep 2018 22:09:06 +0200
Davide Rizzo wrote:
>
> In this case, I even see the potential to convey the original message
> in a more powerful way than the current formulation does. I'm not a
> good candidate for this, as the chosen language for this community is
> English, which is not my
I just want to point out that you don't need permission from anybody to
start a library. I think developing and popularizing a contracts library is
a reasonable goal -- but that's something you can start doing at any time
without waiting for consensus.
And if it gets popular enough, maybe it'll be
I'm afraid that in reading the examples provided it is difficulties for me
not simply to think that EVERY SINGLE ONE of them would be FAR easier to
read if it were an `assert` instead.
The API of the library is a bit noisy, but I think the obstacle it's more
in the higher level design for me. Addi
