2009/9/18 Peter Moody <peter at hda3.com>: > On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 6:17 PM, Andrew McNamara > <andrewm at object-craft.com.au> wrote: >>>off to patch the pep and implement some of the non controversial changes. >> >> It might be a good idea to add some use-cases to the PEP. > > There are several use-cases in the PEP already. > > The problem is, for every use-case where one can show that the > existing implementation is confusing, I can come up with a use-case > showing where the existing implementation makes more sense than > anything proposed. > > Cheers, > /peter For any given use-case there is bound to be an opposing one, but the goal is to satisfy the most common or relevant use-cases that we all experience - can't please all the people all the time etc. I think that alot of the confusion and disagreements surrounding the API are due to the absence of use-cases in the PEP - we can all probably agree an IP address module has intrinsic merit, but how we expect to use it may vary significantly. As a result the discussion seems to be driven by the example implementation, instead of the by the use-cases that make the module worthwhile being added - I would normally think it would be the other way round. Without a clear set of expectations and use-cases, it would also be hard to propose an alternate implementation.
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