Chris King writes:
> Given the proposed changes:
[...]
> is Guido still -1 on this?
Guido replies:
> Yes, very strongly against.
>
> I don't like reading code that was written by someone trying to use
> tail recursion. It's the ultimate code obfuscation.
As one of the people who has been defending this proposal, let me
now suggest that we just drop the idea. Guido has made it quite
clear... it's not the way that it's implemented that he objects to,
it's the mere fact that it enables the user to write using a highly
recursive style. No change to the implementation (even if you could
avoid having the second event loop) will fix the problem. Your
original change can be kept around as a patch that people can apply
for themselves if they want to. I expect that anyone who *really*
cared would be using stackless anyway.
You and I may think that Guido is wrong on this one, but he's been
quite clear and it's not worth arguing over.
-- Michael Chermside
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