On Tue, Dec 07, 2021 at 06:42:18PM +0000, Rob Cliffe via Python-ideas wrote: [The other Stephen]
That's a strawman. The argument is not "Your proposal is good, but not perfect, so we reject it."
That IMO is exactly the argument. It's like saying "I won't buy a car today because in 10/20/50 years time I can probably buy a driverless one".
I think a better analogy for those who reject late-bound defaults but would accept a general deferred evaluation mechanism is: "I won't buy a driverless car today because I have a perfectly good car now, and **driving is not a sufficient burden** that I care for this feature alone. But fully autonomous robots that could drive my car, clean my house, do my chores, now *that's* something I would buy!" [the other Stephen]
if _*you*_ do this other stuff we would likely support it." [My emphasis - RC.]
You want *Chris* to implement deferred-evaluation objects?
Clearly not. It's obvious in context that Stephen is talking about *generic* "you". He's not addressing his comment to Chris. Anyone could read the comment and interpret that "you" as themselves, and respond "What a great idea! I'm going to implement deferred evaluation!". You surely don't imagine that Stephen thinks, or implies, that those who want a generic deferred evaluation feature would reject it if it wasn't done specifically by Chris himself. I know that the Python-Ideas community is changable like the wind and rather mercurial, but we've never yet demanded a feature we want be implemented by a *particular person* or else we will reject it. -- Steve