Plea: could we try to get an accurate subject line on at least 1 msg in 10? Thanks. [Moshe] > I know, and I'm not. But the thing is, there are plenty of users of > CPython which do rely on this feature -- so you're going to break > people's code. Not nice. [Mark Hammond] > No - we will simply be pointing out their already broken code. We > arent breaking anything! > > I have no problem with this at all. The sooner we point out the > broken code the better. The last thing we want is for obviously and > documented broken code to suddenly be considered non-broken simply by > the volume of poor code out there... Spoken like a man who has never maintained a language implementation used by hordes of unhappy users <0.5 wink>. The bitching about "breaking" .append(1,2,3) was nothing compared to what this would stir up, and when the first "important" customer seriously threatens to walk, vendors usually back down out of a healthy sense of self-preservation. Been there so many times it even makes me want to puke <wink>. > Either way, I think you are overstating the problem. I agree with that too. I don't think CPython could get away with this, but you have a new implementation and users will see this as a basis on which they compete. The *convenience* of CPython's (accidental but real!) semantics here is undeniable. Still, I don't see it coming up much except wrt temp files, and if that becomes An Issue for you, you can always special-case the snot out of them. users-don't-read-manuals-but-they-do-pay-the-bills-ly y'rs - tim
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