Hi Mark, As the specific author of that example (and the author of the big it had on a previous version) let me clarify:
The change in semantics is intentional. I could be more explicit, and preserve semantics, but I actually find very likely that the original code does not support other sequences because it would make their code more complicated (so it's a matter of opinion but for me it's a feature, not a bug) As for the previous fixed bug, of like to mentioned that I misread the original code (I tend to use >= rather than > for those comparisons) so I read "at least one element" rather than "more than one". Again, it may be subjective taste but I find our version more readable in that respect and less likely to be misinterpreted (making the bug easier to spot there) Best, Daniel On Thu, 6 Aug 2020, 12:32 Mark Shannon, <m...@hotpy.org> wrote: > Hi, > > I have two questions about PEP 622, as it stands. > > 1. Is the current version the final version? > > 2. Is the difference in semantics between the Django example and the > proposed replacement deliberate or accidental? > (The difference being the change in behaviour for sequences other > than list or tuple). > > Cheers, > Mark. > _______________________________________________ > Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@python.org > To unsubscribe send an email to python-dev-le...@python.org > https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/ > Message archived at > https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/message/NQBL4S6WTM5647J2YKJNWM446WX3ELHO/ > Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/ >
_______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-dev-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/message/WA6HJBW4HQWL3ESYKH3PUWVE47TPJOXZ/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
