In a message of Thu, 29 Oct 2015 19:13:08 +0000, Paul Moore writes: >> I am actually sick of the 'consenting adults' argument. >> I am dealing with '11 year old children trying to write their >> first, third and tenth python programs'. For the life of me >> I cannot see how convenience for the sort of person who has a >> legitimate reason to shadow the syslib should get a higher priority >> over these mites who are doing their damndest to write python >> despite natural language barriers and the fact that their peers >> and parents think they are nuts to want to do so. > >That's actually a very good point, and I agree totally. To my mind, >the point about "consenting adults" (and when I referred to that I was >anticipating others using that argument, not proposing it myself) is >that we don't *prevent* people from doing weird and wonderful things. >But conversely, it's not a reason for making it *easy* to do such >things. Quite the opposite - a "consenting adult" should be assumed to >be capable of writing an import hook, or manipulating sys.path, or >whatever. > >Paul Hmmm, I think the set of 'consenting adults who cannot write an import hook' is rather large. But all I am asking for is a warning -- and it would be good if Idle noticed the warning and before it fell over dead with its message of firewalls it would mention the warning again, as a problem to look for. It will bugger up doctests for people who legitimately shadow the stdlib and now get a new warning. Anybody else be seriously inconvenienced if we do this? I cannot think of any, but then legitimately shadowing the stdlib in not on the list of things I have done. Perhaps Dstufft has ideas on this line. Laura
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