On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 8:59 AM, Koos Zevenhoven <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:[..]
> On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 6:54 AM, Nick Coghlan <email@example.com> wrote:
>> 1. Preserve the current behaviour, since we don't have a compelling reasonNote that this is an independent argument w.r.t. both PEPs. PEP 550
>> to change its semantics
>> 2. Change the behaviour, in order to gain <end user benefit>
> 3. Introduce a new context manager that behaves intuitively. My guess is
> that the two context managers could even be made to interact with each other
> in a fairly reasonable manner, even if you nest them in different orders.
> I'm not sure how necessary that is.
does not propose to change existing decimal APIs. It merely uses
decimal to illustrate the problem, and suggests a fix using the new
Although it is true that I plan to propose to use PEP 550 to
reimplement decimal APIs on top of it, and so far I haven't seen any
real-world examples of code that will be broken because of that. As
far as I know—and I've done some research—nobody uses decimal contexts
and generators because of the associated problems. It's a chicken and