On 2018-06-26 13:54, Ivan Pozdeev via Python-Dev wrote:
> This is exactly what that the YAGNI principle is about, and Inada was
> right to point to it. Until you have an immediate practical need for
> something, you don't really know the shape and form for it that you will
> be the most comfortable with. Thus any "would be nice to have"
> tinkerings are essentially a waste of time and possibly a degradation,
> too: you'll very likely have to change them again when the real need
> arises -- while having to live with any drawbacks in the meantime.
It is important to clarify that this is exactly what I did. I *have* an
implementation of PEP 580 and it's based on that PR 7909.
I just think that this PR makes sense independently of whether PEP 580
will be accepted.
> So, if you suggest those changes together with the PEP 580 PR
That sounds like a bad idea because that would be mixing two issues in
one PR. If I want to increase my chances of getting PEP 580 and its
implementation accepted, I shouldn't bring in unrelated changes.
To put it in a different perspective: if somebody else would make a PR
to one of my projects doing a refactoring and adding new features, I
would ask them to split it up.