[Chris Angelico <[email protected]>]
> ...
> I don't understand why people bring up all these arguments that have
> absolutely nothing to do with the proposal at hand. None of this has
> in any way changed.
That's easy: any time there's a long thread to which Guido has
contributed at least twice, it will be seen as a Golden Opportunity to
re-litigate every decision that's ever been made ;-)
Some amount of that seems healthy to me (people are thinking about
"language design" from a larger view than the proposal du jour). In
this specific case, line-oriented coverage tools have missed
accounting for all possible code paths since day #1; e.g.,
x = f() or g()
You don't need to reply to messages so obviously irrelevant to the PEP
unless you want to. It's not like Guido will read them and go "oh! a
binding expression in a ternary conditional is a fundamentally new
potential problem for a line-oriented coverage tool! that's fatal"
;-)
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
