RetroSearch Browse

Wed Mar 17 20:15:43 EST 2004 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2004-March/043196.html

"Guido van Rossum" <guido at python.org> wrote in message
news:200403172345.i2HNjW807716 at guido.python.org...
> [Andrew Koenig describes a proposal to redefine 'if' for immutables]
>
> [Phillip Eby]
> > > Three reasons why not:
> > >
> > > Simple is better than complex.
> > > In the face of ambiguity, refuse the temptation to guess.
> > > If the implementation is hard to explain, it's a bad idea.
>
> I'm not sure any of those apply to Andrew's proposal though.

A simple, easy-to-understand, one-sentence rule versus a seemingly
arbitrary four-sentence rule strikes me as simple versus complex.  I would
not relish trying to explain the proposal to anyone.

> I'm curious what the reason is to want to redefine 'is' for immutables.

>From what I have read, the objection is aesthetic, rather than something
driven by practical production code needs.  It struck me as a typical "this
bothers me, here's how someone should fix it" thread that keeps clp from
getting too quiet.

Terry J. Reedy

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

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2004-March/043196.html below:

A proposal has surfaced on comp.lang.python toredefine "is"