Something that might change your views about Elegance here: calling these
particular constants "cuddly" was intended to be ironic. If *any* program
uses one of these, I can pretty much guarantee it will eventually break.
They're not part of a public API. The two current uses (__future__ and
pyassem) are part of the implementation of the core, and just happen to be
coded in Python.
For that reason I'm -1 on putting these particular constants in a location
with an inviting name, or making their own names prettier, etc etc -- I'm
even -1 on documenting them (outside of comments in the internal C header
file where they're #define'd).
Rather than argue about it, I'm going to revert the changes to new and
__future__, backing off to defining them by hand in __future__.py.
doesn't-stop-anyone-else-from-doing-the-right-thing-later-just-think-
twice-about-how-right-it-is-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