RetroSearch Browse

Mon Jul 3 11:19:14 CEST 2006 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2006-July/066955.html

Josiah Carlson wrote:

> I had hoped that there would be a response to my second (and I believe
> more applicable statement); "if the feature is really only useful for
> generally trivial cases *without* the feature, then making them even
> more trivial, I think, is a bit of over optimization."

I don't think "trivial" is the right word to use here,
since it implies something that's of so little importance
that it can be ignored. But the simple cases are precisely
the ones where this wart hurts the most, so we can't
ignore them.

Arguments that a feature is undesirable because this
or that workaround exists seem like post-hoc justifications
to me. Think about it the other way around -- if writing
to outer scopes had been straightforward from the
beginning, would you be arguing for the *removal* of
that ability? Would it even have occurred to anyone to
do such a thing?

--
Greg

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

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2006-July/066955.html below:

[Python-Dev] Lexical scoping in Python 3k