'for every' and 'for any'

Stephen J. Turnbull stephen at xemacs.org
Mon Jun 3 08:35:45 CEST 2002


>>>>> "Quinn" == Quinn Dunkan <quinn at regurgitate.ugcs.caltech.edu> writes:

    Quinn> To me, that's "abstraction".  Logging debugging information
    Quinn> is a very common task, but python doesn't have it built in.
    Quinn> I don't write 'if debug >= whatever: print blah' all the
    Quinn> time and blame python for forcing me to jump through hoops,
    Quinn> I write util.dprint().  I don't have to complain about its
    Quinn> not being built in or wait for 2.3 or 2.2.2 or whatever,
    Quinn> since I can have exactly what I want right now.

Picking an example that suits the point: this is exactly what
PEP-something-or-other (282, in this case) is about.  Understood,
_you_ don't have to wait, and you maybe don't want to.

As I understand it, Oren's point is precisely that you rarely have to
wait very long (at the current stage of Python development) for the
appropriate PEP-something-or-other to show up -- and it's usually
pretty well thought out and will work for most people.

Furthermore, PEPs are strongly encouraged (maybe required?) to provide
an implementation early.  This means that you can use them now, with a
pretty good shot at forward compatibility.


-- 
Institute of Policy and Planning Sciences     http://turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp
University of Tsukuba                    Tennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN
 My nostalgia for Icon makes me forget about any of the bad things.  I don't
have much nostalgia for Perl, so its faults I remember.  Scott Gilbert c.l.py



More information about the Python-list mailing list