default value in __init__

[Aaron "Castironpi" Brady]

On Oct 16, 1:05 am, "Chris Rebert" <c... at rebertia.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 9:43 PM, Aaron Castironpi Brady
>
>
>
> <castiro... at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Oct 15, 11:33 pm, Steve Holden <st... at holdenweb.com> wrote:
> >> Aaron "Castironpi" Brady wrote:
>
> >> [about how default argument behavior should, in his opinion, be changed]
>
> >> Say what you like. The language is as it is by choice. Were it, for some
> >> reason, to change we would then be receiving posts every week that
> >> didn't understand the *new* behavior.
>
> >> Sometimes people just have to learn to confirm with reality instead of
> >> requiring reality to confirm with their preconceptions. This is one such
> >> case.
>
> >> regards
> >>  Steve
> >> --
> >> Steve Holden        +1 571 484 6266   +1 800 494 3119
> >> Holden Web LLC              http://www.holdenweb.com/
>
> > I am not convinced it should either stay or go, but it's hard to argue
> > one way or the other about something so deeply entrenched.  However,
> > what are your thoughts, whatever the default behavior is, on a
> > decorator that provides the alternative?  That is, a decorator that
> > either reevaluates default arguments each time when the language
> > evaluates them once, or a decorator that evaluates arguments once,
> > when the languages evaluates them each time?
>
> > P.S.
> >> we would then be receiving posts every week that
> >> didn't understand the *new* behavior.
> > That is not obvious and I don't know of any empirical evidence that
> > entails it.  Hard to search the standard library for that figure.
>
> Although primitive and likely somewhat flawed, you may find the
> statistics in the "Compatibility Issues" section ofhttp://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-3000/2007-February/005704.html
> to be of interest.
>
> Cheers,
> Chris
> --
> Follow the path of the Iguana...http://rebertia.com
>
> > --
> >http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
>
>

I remember, I've seen it before.  Are you proposing that the number of
posts we'd receive about this feature is proportional to its frequency
of usage?