"Stephen J. Turnbull" email@example.com writes:
[…] The "meta" of "special cases aren't special enough to break the rules" is that no design decision that violates it should be dismissed as "minor".
Thank you. That dismissal was very upsetting; essentially telling Python users that their concerns for a clean API in the standard library aren't worth much to the Python core developers.
In context of a mailing list, doing so is going to be taken by readers as "I know what I'm doing, and you don't know what you're talking about, so STFU."
That may not have been the intent. It certainly was how it was received by some of us here.
Both roles in this comedy of errors are natural, they are inherent in human cognition (citations on request), and nobody is to be blamed.
Since it can't seem to be said enough, I agree with what Stephen's saying here wholeheartedly: the above explications are not intended as blame, but an explanation of why calls to “stop talking about this, it's minor” had precisely the opposite effect.
-- \ “Remember: every member of your ‘target audience’ also owns a | `\ broadcasting station. These ‘targets’ can shoot back.” —Michael | _o__) Rathbun to advertisers, news.admin.net-abuse.email | Ben Finney