Attack a sacred Python Cow
bdesth.quelquechose at free.quelquepart.fr
Thu Jul 24 14:51:20 CEST 2008
Jordan a écrit :
> OK, it seems my original reply to Bruno got lost in the Aether
> (apologies therefore if a paraphrased "quantum duplicate" of this
> message is eventually forthcoming.)
> Torsten has adequately responded to his second point,
Not MHO, by far.
> so I need only
> replicated what I said for the first.
>> Please get your facts, the behaviour *is* actually fully documented:
> I have the facts. I know full well the behaviour is documented
Then why do you write, let me quote:
(snip) coding __eq__ (snip) buys you
nothing from the != operator. != isn't (by default) a synonym for the
negation of == (unlike in, say, every other language ever); not only
will Python let you make them mean different things, without
documenting this fact - it actively encourages you to do so.
> was pointed out at the time of the original discussion. Documenting a
> confusing, unintuitive design decision (whether its in a programming
> language, an end user GUI app or anything in between) doesn't justify
I was not commenting on the actual design choice, just stating that it
is actually documented.
> To attack a strawman: "foolanguage uses the bar IO library; printing
> to stdout takes about 10 mins on the average machine. But thats ok,
> because look, its documented right here."
And you're talking about strawman ??? Come on, you obviously can tell
the difference between a one-line statement and your above strawman
argument, don't you ?
Please understand that I'm not arguing about this particular design
choice (and FWIW, I'd mostly agree on the point that having a != b
different from not (a == b) is actually a wart). I'm just correcting
your statement about the behaviour of __eq__ / __ne__ not being
documented, which is obviously false.
More information about the Python-list