On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 6:37 AM, geremy condra <debatem1@gmail.com> wrote:
Also, just to make sure I'm being clear- Nick, I'm not trying to bash your code. I just think that right now this lends itself to some really hard-to-understand constructions.
There's a reason PEP 3150 has two sections ("PEP Deferral" and "Key Concern") devoted to explaining why it's current state is Deferred rather than Draft. When *I'm* not convinced it's a good idea, I'm not at all inclined to take offense when people see serious problems with the concept :) With PEP 343, we managed to find a sweet spot that allowed a great deal of flexibility without unduly encouraging obfuscated code. I've yet to find a similar sweet spot with PEP 3150 or related ideas. I feel there's a seed of a useful concept in there somewhere, but mostly it just creates two ways to do too many things. Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia