I think you misunderstood me - otherwise I don't know what this email is meant to accomplish. The conversation as I see it went:
Brandt in the PEP: X is an antipattern. Andrew to Brandt: A strict flag would require us to do Y which you said is an antipattern. Me to Andrew: Y is fine, it's not an antipattern, the PEP said that X (which is different from Y) is an antipattern, which I agree with.
You're confirming what I'm saying but it doesn't sound intentional, especially at the start with "Then don't do it!".
On Sat, May 2, 2020 at 12:50 AM Steven D'Aprano firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
On Fri, May 01, 2020 at 11:30:17PM +0200, Alex Hall wrote:
Specifically the PEP says:
Another proposed idiom, per-module shadowing of the built-in zip with
subtly different variant from itertools, is an anti-pattern that
I think the PEP is saying it'd be an antipattern to shadow zip with a version that is always strict. If you want both strict and non-strict in the same file, you're in trouble.
Then don't do it!
If you want both, then it is trivially easy to use both:
from itertools import zip_equal zip(zip_equal(a, b), c)
But replacing zip with a zip that has an optional strict flag should be harmless.
[Aside: I still disagree *strongly* with the use of a "strict" flag here.]
Indeed, that's a perfectly safe and fine use of shadowing. Python is designed to allow shadowing. Calling it an "anti-pattern" is just wrong. Yes, shadowing can be abused, or done by accident, but intentional shadowing is a useful software design pattern. For instance:
if not settings['print_diagnostics']: print = lambda *args, **kw: None def main(): print('diagnostics go here') ...
-- Steven _______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list -- email@example.com To unsubscribe send an email to firstname.lastname@example.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-ideas.python.org/ Message archived at https://email@example.com/message/N54HB2... Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/