Python 1.6 alpha 1 released

Fredrik Lundh effbot at telia.com
Tue Apr 4 21:15:15 CEST 2000


Bjorn Pettersen <bjorn at roguewave.com> wrote:
> Your definition of broken seems very peculiar.  Correct me if I'm wrong,
> but it seems to go something like:

I've explained all this to you already.  lousy newsfeed? :-)

>   - you don't know if examples are binding documentation
>   - pair in the description of connect _must_ mean tuple
>     and _not_ a pair of arguments because ???

I've explained that in another post -- the library reference use
a special syntax for optional arguments.  the description of the
connect method doesn't use that syntax.  other method
descriptions do (this includes descriptions on the same page).

besides, "pair" is used quite extensively in the library reference,
usually with exactly the same meaning as here: a 2-tuple.  see,
for example, the description of "socket.error", "accept", and
"recvfrom".

>     (I would have thought it would have said tuple if it meant
>     tuple -- tuples being Python concept as opposed to pairs)

I've explained that in another post -- it tells you that the
address format is (host, port) -- which is perfectly valid tuple
syntax.

but alright, let's change "pair" to "2-tuple" everywhere.  will
fixing this make you accept the change?

>   - the example in question is broken because, even though
>     it works, and seems to follow the description from the
>     previous page, ...

I've explained that in another post -- it worked because the
connect implementation didn't handle its argument properly,
not because it was designed that way.  it stopped working
when Guido fixed the argument handling bug.

and yes, this is exactly the same reason why append, insert,
etc. did work in 1.5.2, and why they don't work in 1.6.

yet, you think there is a difference.

>   - ... other examples have been broken in the past...

I've explained that in another post -- broken examples are
obviously not formally binding.  You replied that broken
examples should be fixed.  Of course it should.  So should
all broken demo code and the broken examples, just like
all code that uses "append" etc must be fixed.

but will fixing this make you accept the change?

>
> I must say I'm confused...

yes, I think you're confused.

you would probably be less confused if you read my replies
to your own posts...

> The good news is that Guido realized how much code this would break, and
> will fix the code.

yeah, and he'll probably break it again in 1.7.

just like he'll break append and a few other things in 1.6,
and just like he broke stuff in 1.5.  and in 1.4.  etc.

you can keep on arguing until the end of c.l.py, but there's
nothing special about "connect".  except, maybe, that you
*know* that you're affected by this change, and you think
you're not affected by any of the others.

if so, that's not only a very egocentric view, it's also rather
naive.

(no, don't reply.  just read my other posts in this thread. or
if you think I don't have a clue, don't.  I don't really care)

</F>





More information about the Python-list mailing list