On Jul 28, 2015 10:41 PM, "Stephen J. Turnbull" <email@example.com> wrote:
> Ben Finney writes:
> > I've made a clear distinction between the need to *be able to*
> > justify a change, versus arbitrary demands to do so by arbitrary
> > members.
> > The latter is what you're arguing against, and of course I agree. I've
> > never advocated that.
> Sure, but the former, when stated as a rule rather than induced from
> past cases, is also an unacceptably high bar. It's unnecessarily
> high, because this is open source. No mistake is irrecoverable, even
> if it happens in a public release. One can always keep using the last
> release one liked.<wink/> Or maintain a local fork. Or switch to a
> different language. Or <gasp/> live with the misfeature.
> The other face is that it's impossibly high. Some decisions can't be
> justified rationally, because the theory isn't developed until later,
> typically based on experience with an intuitively-approved feature.
> In the end, some decisions really do come down to somebody's "gut
> As I've already said, in the case of "assret" I *personally* think the
> demands of accountability were higher than the mere repetition of
> "it's a minor design decision" could satisfy. Nevertheless, I
> wouldn't try to enunciate a rule.
* sorry, I haven't the context for this: would -m compileall or an AST preprocess help catch speling mistakes as well as syntax highlighting?
* If the constraints are ill-defined, there are not enough tests; "Fearless Refactoring"
> Python-Dev mailing list
> Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/wes.turner%40gmail.com