> I say "do it incrementally" while others say "do it all at once." > Personally, I don't think it is possible to do all at once. As a > corollary, if you can't do it all at once, but you *require* that it be > done all at once, then you have effectively deferred the problem. To put > it another way, Guido has already invented a reason to not do it: he just > requires that it be done all at once. Result: it won't be done. Bullshit, Greg. (I don't normally like to use such strong words, but since you're being confrontational here...) I'm all for doing it incrementally -- but I want the plan for how to do it made up front. That doesn't require all the details to be worked out -- but it requires a general idea about what kind of things we will have in the namespace and what kinds of names they get. An organizing principle, if you like. If we were to decide later that we go for a Java-like deep hierarchy, the network package would have to be moved around again -- what a waste. --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)
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