Am 20.05.2013 00:33, schrieb Nick Coghlan:
On 20 May 2013 05:24, "Ned Batchelder" <ned@nedbatchelder.com <mailto:ned@nedbatchelder.com>> wrote:
On 5/19/2013 2:58 PM, Mark Janssen wrote:
We can't just "remove implicit concatenation", because that will break code which is currently working perfectly. And probably it will break more working code than it will fix unnoticed broken code.
Really? Isn't the number of programs breaking roughly equal to 2, perhaps less?
Interesting, how did you get that number?
If it's based on the contents of these threads, be aware that at least one core developer (me) and probably more have already mostly tuned out on the grounds that the feature is obviously in wide enough use that changing it will break the world without adequate gain. We don't even have to speculate on what others might be doing, we know it would break *our* code.
Yep. I just look at this thread every now and then to marvel at the absurdly complicated ideas people come up with to replace something straightforward :) Georg