On 03/30/2012 03:27 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote: > On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 12:13 PM, Etienne Robillard > <animelovin at gmail.com> wrote: >> On 03/30/2012 03:02 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote: >>> >>> Hey Etienne, I am honestly trying to understand your contribution but >>> you seem to have started a discussion about free speech. Trust me that >>> we don't mind your contributions, we're just trying to understand what >>> you're saying, and the free speech discussion isn't helping with that. >> >> >> I agree. >> >> >>> So if you have a comment on the dict mutation problem, please say so. >> >> >> OK. >> >> >>> If you need help understanding the problem, python-dev is not the >>> place to ask questions; you could ask on the bug, or on the >>> core-mentorship list as Nick suggested. But please stop bringing up >>> free speech, that's not an issue. >> >> >> Guido, thanks for the wisdom and clarity of your reasoning. I really >> appreciate a positive attitude towards questioning not so obvious problems. >> >> So far I was only attempting to verify whether this is related to PEP-416 or >> not. If this is indeed related PEP 416, then I must obviously attest that I >> must still understand why a immutable dict would prevent this bug or not... > > It's not related to PEP 416 (which was rejected). Please refer to > http://bugs.python.org/issue14417 for the issue being discussed. > >> Either ways, I fail to see where this is OT or should be discussed on a more >> obscur forum than python-dev. :-) > > We need to keep that list clear for important discussions. It is the > only channel that the core Python developers have. If it has too much > noise people will stop reading it and it stops functioning. Hence, we > try to keep questions from newbies to a minimum -- there are other > places where we welcome such questions though. > > So, once more, if you don't understand the issue and cannot figure it > out by reading up, please ask somewhere else (or just accept that you > don't have anything to contribute to this particular issue). This > includes explaining basic terms like "mutate". On the other hand, if > you *do* understand the problem, by all means let us know what you > think of the question at hand (whether the change referred to in the > issue is going to break people's code or not). We don't need more > speculation though; that's how we got here in the first place (my > speculation that it's not going to be an issue vs. RDM's speculation > that it's going to cause widespread havoc :-). > > I hope you understand. No, not really. Anyways, I guess I'll have to further dig down why is PEP-416 is really important to Python and why it was likewise rejected, supposing I confused the pep 416 and issue 14417 along the way.. :-) CHeers, Etienne
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