+1 on breaking it now, rather than deferring it Yet Again. IMO, there has been plenty of warning, and there is plenty of time to correct the software. I'm +0 on adding a warning architecture to Python to support issuing a warning/error when .append is called with multiple arguments. -g On Mon, 28 Feb 2000, Guido van Rossum wrote: > > MAL: > > > Hmm, I'd say it doesn't hurt leaving .append() as it is until > > > 2.0. > > /F: > > fwiw, I definitely agree. I've spotted too many > > places where this change cause a program to > > silently misbehave, rather than blow up (PIL's > > JPEG plugin is just one example...). > > Sigh... > > This smells of a too-inclusive except clause... Otherwise the program > should have raised a clear exception. I suggest to fix it rather than > whine... > > Am I responsible for everybody else's bad coding style? > > If it's not in the docs, where does everybody get the idea that this > is legal? (The few cases in the std library are unlikely to be the > only source; they were in pretty obscure places.) > > --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/) > > _______________________________________________ > Python-Dev maillist - Python-Dev@python.org > http://www.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev > -- Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4