On 17 January 2014 08:01, Guido van Rossum <guido@python.org> wrote:
I am tired of being the only blocker. So I withdraw my preference. Do what you all can agree on without me.
I had been staying out of the debate because I haven't had time to participate in the derby yet (if nobody has claimed the builtins yet, I was planning to do that this weekend). However, reviewing the changes for http://bugs.python.org/issue20189 has now been enough to convince me that a separate generated file is the way to go. My rationale is because of the way it affects the code review process: with a separate file, I can skip to the next file in the review as soon as I see ".clinic" in the file name. We may even be able to teach Reitveld to skip over clinic files (or at least suggest skipping them) automatically. With the current intermingled hand written + generated format, I can't tell just from the file name whether or not there are manual changes I need to review. Fortunately, in this particular case, Larry provided a list of the files with real changes in them, but I now think it makes more sense to instead bake the "this is all generated code, if you have reviewed the input changes and trust argument clinic to do the right thing, you can just skip reviewing it" notification directly into the filenames. Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia