[Brian Sabbey] > >> If suites were commonly used as above to define properties, event handlers > >> and other callbacks, then I think most people would be able to comprehend > >> what the first example above is doing much more quickly than the second. [Fredrik] > > wonderful logic, there. good luck with your future adventures in language > > design. [Brian again] > I'm just trying to help python improve. Maybe I'm not doing a very good > job, I don't know. Either way, there's no need to be rude. > > If I've broken some sort of unspoken code of behavior for this list, then > maybe it would be easier if you just 'spoke' it (perhaps in a private > email or in the description of this list on python.org). In his own inimitable way, Fredrik is pointing out that your argument is a tautology (or very close to one): rephrased, it sounds like "if X were commonly used, you'd recognize it easily", which isn't a sufficient argument for anything. While I've used similar arguments occasionally to shut up folks whose only remaining argument against a new feature was "but nobody will understand it the first time they encounter it" (which is true of *everything* you see for the first time), such reasoning isn't strong enough to support favoring one thing over another. -- --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