A RetroSearch Logo

Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Search Query:

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2003-June/036311.html below:

[Python-Dev] Default constructor values (Re: [Python-checkins] python/dist/src/Doc/lib libfuncs.tex,1.134,1.135)

[Python-Dev] Default constructor values (Re: [Python-checkins] python/dist/src/Doc/lib libfuncs.tex,1.134,1.135)Guido van Rossum guido@python.org
Fri, 13 Jun 2003 08:30:19 -0400
> >>If you really happen to have a need for this, why can't you
> >>introduce factory functions which take care of your particular
> >>use case ? I don't think it's common enough to risk accidental
> >>progamming errors in other user's code.
> > 
> > Marc, you haven't shown why it's so bad either, so please shut up.
> 
> I beg your pardon: Just look at the last sentence in my reply. It is
> you that hasn't shown a single qualified use case for this "feature".
> You also haven't shown why the defaults you have chosen were picked
> and what the reasoning was.

To the contrary, I explained my reasons, but you didn't think they
were important.  Similarly, I don't believe you have shown that there
*is* a risk of accidental errors (you haven't shown me a c.l.py
conversation where this caused confusion, despite it being in Python
2.2 since it was released in 2001).

So it's a stalemate.  I can't change it even if I wanted (which I
don't) because of backwards compatibility.  We could change bool() back
but now consistency with the others feels more important to me.

--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