On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 9:41 PM, Stefan Behnel <stefan...@behnel.de> wrote: > Greg Ewing, 08.05.2012 02:05: >> Stefan Behnel wrote: >> >>> The main reason we didn't change this behaviour back then was that it would >>> clearly break user code and we thought we could do without that. That's >>> different from considering it "right" and "good". >> >> I changed the None-checking behaviour in Pyrex because I *wanted* >> to break user code. Or rather, I didn't think it would be a >> bad thing to make people revisit their code and think properly >> about whether they really wanted to allow None in each case. > > The problem here is that it's not very likely that people specifically > tested their code with None values, especially if they didn't carefully > think of it already when writing it. > > So changing the default to make people think may not result in making them > think before their code starts throwing exceptions somewhere in production. > And having to revisit a large amount of code at that point may turn out to > be rather expensive.
There's also the problem of people (including me) who wrote a lot of code that *does* correctly handle the None case which, with this change, would suddenly start (erroneously) throwing exceptions without all being revisited. - Robert _______________________________________________ cython-devel mailing list cython-devel@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/cython-devel
