> You started this game and asked for these many arguments :-) OK, I've played enough. :-) > My only objection is overriding the __str__ method. Everything > else is just fine. Good. > You don't have a boolean type in the sense of algebra, but we > can't change that due to Python's history and a true algebraic > boolean type can easily be written as extension, so it doesn't > worry me much. Agreed. There's only so much we can do without applying the time machine to 12 years of code developed by 100,000s of people. > Hmm, perhaps you should name the type "truth" or "truthvalue" > rather than boolean. Yuck. It's called bool (or Boolean) everywhere else, even when the semantics are defined to be just different names for 0 and 1. I don't like to innovate here. > Could be... I don't like it when things are broken on purpose > just to have an interactive session return "nice" output. I also > don't like scanning tons of code to find the few instances > where this change breaks application interop. > > There must be other ways to satisfy your requirements and > mine. We'll see. I'm flexible. --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