Martin v. Löwis wrote: > Adam Olsen wrote: > >>Still -1. It's better, but it violates the principle of encapsulation >>by mixing how-you-use-it state with what-it-stores state. In doing >>that it has the potential to break an API documented as accepting a >>dict. Code that expects d[key] to raise an exception (and catches the >>resulting KeyError) will now silently "succeed". > > > Of course it will, and without quotes. That's the whole point. > > >>I believe that necessitates a PEP to document it. > > > You are missing the rationale of the PEP process. The point is > *not* documentation. The point of the PEP process is to channel > and collect discussion, so that the BDFL can make a decision. > The BDFL is not bound at all to the PEP process. > > To document things, we use (or should use) documentation. > > One could wish this ideal had been the case for the import extensions defined in PEP 302. regards Steve -- Steve Holden +44 150 684 7255 +1 800 494 3119 Holden Web LLC www.holdenweb.com PyCon TX 2006 www.python.org/pycon/
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