On 5/17/08, Stefan Behnel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This whole discussion sounds a lot like bike shedding to me. I say it would be > better if people fixed their code instead of doing guess-work,
Them problem is what you define by 'broken code', The following valid Cython (and valid Python) code does not looks as broken to me, but perhaps is broken to you? data = [1,2,3] a = getattr(data, "append") a(4) > and I have come > up with a couple of examples where current Cython code breaks under the > semantics you propose. You say it would make more users happy if we adopted > these semantics. > Why don't we just leave it the way it currently is implemented? Because if in the future many people complain, this behavior is perhaps is, and this is not goot regarding the stability of Cython The Language. > That way, we > start off with correct but strict semantics that match the way this whole > ambiguity problem was fixed in Py3, and then users can decide if they want to > fix their code that proves broken under Py3, or if they want to complain on > the list that their broken code should be fixed by Cython. That would give us > some real-life examples to debate instead of having an undermotivated "I > think > we have more users who would vote for x)" discussion. Well, I'm a user, and I cannot buy easily that the thee-line snipet I wrote above is going to fail in Py3. -- Lisandro Dalcín --------------- Centro Internacional de Métodos Computacionales en Ingeniería (CIMEC) Instituto de Desarrollo Tecnológico para la Industria Química (INTEC) Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas (CONICET) PTLC - Güemes 3450, (3000) Santa Fe, Argentina Tel/Fax: +54-(0)342-451.1594 _______________________________________________ Cython-dev mailing list [email protected] http://codespeak.net/mailman/listinfo/cython-dev
