Fred, My only motivation was style. As per your comment: "In general, we try to avoid making style changes to the code since that can increase the maintenance burden (patches can be harder to produce that can be cleanly applied to multiple versions)." I will keep this in mind when supplying future patches. Joseph Armbruster On 5/31/07, Fred L. Drake, Jr. <fdrake at acm.org> wrote: > > On Saturday 26 May 2007, Joseph Armbruster wrote: > > I noticed that one of the parts of ConfigParser was not using "for line > > in fp" style of readline-ing :-) So, this will reduce the SLOC by 3 > > lines and improve readability. However, I did a quick grep and this > > type of practice appears in several other places. > > Before the current iteration support was part of Python, there was no way > to > iterate over a the way there is now; the code you've dug up is simply from > before the current iteration support. (As I'm sure you know.) > > Is there motivation for these changes other than a stylistic preference > for > the newer idioms? Keeping the SLOC count down seems pretty minimal, and > unimportant. Making the code more understandable is valuable, but it's > not > clear how much this really achieves that. > > In general, we try to avoid making style changes to the code since that > can > increase the maintenance burden (patches can be harder to produce that can > be > cleanly applied to multiple versions). No other motivat Are there motivations we're missing? > > > -Fred > > -- > Fred L. Drake, Jr. <fdrake at acm.org> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20070531/535f320d/attachment.html
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