[Michael Hudson] > Hmm. While I agree that 'or'ing is the best thing to do by default, > it would be nice if there was some way of requesting a blank starting > point (this is the other unresolved issue in PEP 236, after all). > Maybe it's not worth it. Well, there's no reason at all to believe that whatever future statements IDLE and doctest (for examples) happen to use in their own implementations are also appropriate for the user-code they're simulating. So the problem isn't solved in full unless that connection can be broken (is that hard? offhand it *sounds* like it just needs another yes/no argument). OTOH, IDLE and doctest (for examples) can easily enough be written to use no future-stmts at all of their own, so that code compiled from them gets a blank starting point. Whether that remains easy down the road depends on how silly we get in introducing stupid future stmts <0.9 wink>.
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