> > > > Isn't that bikeshedding? > > > > > > No. I think "implementation-specific" is definitely more accurate, > > > and I was hoping the suggestion might get an immediate "good idea, > > > implemented", from somebody already looking at that code. > > > > It's already committed, so one would have to go back and change it. > > Now, *you* are bikeshedding. > > I know that it was committed, so I politely made the suggestion, > half-expecting it to get dropped on the floor. If so, no great loss, > and I wouldn't have followed up (except maybe with a patch on the > tracker). > > Is that discouraged on this list? (That's a real question.)
Making suggestions on the list, and then following up with patch, is certainly encouraged, and happens all the time. I just think that *this* specific proposed change is more effort to talk about than it's worth. It may be more accurate, but changing the phrasing of the message that you get when you invoke a command line option that you shouldn't invoke in the first place, and can't know about unless you've been following this thread or read the source ... is such a minor thing that accuracy doesn't really matter, and is primarily a matter of personal taste. Regards, Martin _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
