On Fri, 17 Jul 2015 08:30:59 +1000 Ben Finney <ben+pyt...@benfinney.id.au> wrote: > Antoine Pitrou <solip...@pitrou.net> writes: > > > On Fri, 17 Jul 2015 06:59:16 +1000 > > Ben Finney <ben+pyt...@benfinney.id.au> wrote: > > > > > > +1. > > > > > > These checks are a good thing, but they belong in a linter tool not as > > > aliases in the API. > > > > Practicality beats purity. Unless you have been actually *bitten* by > > those checks I don't think there's any serious reason to complain. > > By definition, advocating to not add cruft to an API is going to be in > advance of being bitten by those additions.
This sounds very much like FUD to me. I specifically talked about being *actually* bitten by it, not speculating that you may one day be bitten by it without even giving any specifics as to why you think that, except some vague stance on purity. On the other hand, the maintainer mentioned there were concrete cases where some people's test suites were *helped* by the change. You may of course continue this theoretical argument, but I doubt doing so will sway anyone's opinion. Regards Antoine. _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
