[Python-Dev] PEP 264

[Michael Hudson]

"Tim Peters" <tim.one@home.com> writes:

> [Michael Hudson]
> > I'd just like to note in passing that I considered most of the places
> > the CO_* constants ended up in the last week, and rejected them as too
> > gross.  My idea was that
> >
> > __future__.generators.compiler_flag
> >
> > was to be the *only* (Python) name for CO_GENERATORS_ALLOWED (for
> > example).  Are there problems with this (other than the fact that you
> > have to make sure two sets of magic numbers match up - but you have to
> > edit __future__.py when you add a new future feature anyway...).
> 
> The problem is that nobody is going to *remember* the subtleties.  IIRC,
> almost every bug I tracked down was due to *someone* neglecting to fiddle
> all the places that needed to be fiddled when changing future-flags.  So The
> Rule I implemented was two-fold:
[schnipp]

OK, I see.  In this spirit, wouldn't it be better to define the
PyCF_MASK and PyCF_MASK_OBSOLETE flags in the same place as the CO_*
flags they're made up of?

Cheers,
M.

-- 
  Richard Gabriel was wrong: worse is not better, lying is better.
  Languages and systems succeed in the marketplace to the extent that
  their proponents lie about what they can do.
                                       -- Tim Bradshaw, comp.lang.lisp