Fred L. Drake, Jr. wrote:
> On Friday 05 May 2006 02:38, Terry Reedy wrote:
> > My point has been that the function writer should not make such a
> > requirement (for four no-defaut, required params) and that proposing to do
> > so with the proposed '*' is an abuse (for public code). The caller should
>
> And what exactly is the point at which constraining use goes from unreasonable
> to reasonable? Perhaps that involves a judgement call? I think it does.
> Since we're all consenting adults, we should have the tools to make our
> judgements easy to apply.
>
> Since it requires specific action to make the constraint (insertion of the "*"
> marker), there doesn't appear to be any real issue here.
And I imagine API designers that abused the feature would end up being abused
by their users :)
Cheers,
Nick.
--
Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan at gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia
---------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.boredomandlaziness.org
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