On 17 October 2016 at 21:30, Random832 <random...@fastmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Oct 17, 2016, at 16:12, Paul Moore wrote: >> And finally, no-one has even *tried* to explain why we need a third >> way of expressing this construction. Nick made this point, and >> basically got told that his condition was too extreme. He essentially >> got accused of constructing an impossible test. And yet it's an >> entirely fair test, and one that's applied regularly to proposals - >> and many *do* pass the test. > > As the one who made that accusation, my objection was specifically to > the word "always" - which was emphasized - and which is something that I > don't believe is actually a component of the test that is normally > applied. His words, specifically, were "a compelling argument needs to > be presented that the new spelling is *always* preferable to the > existing ones" > > List comprehensions themselves aren't even always preferable to loops.
Sigh. And no-one else in this debate has ever used exaggerated language. I have no idea if Nick would reject an argument that had any exceptions at all, but I don't think it's unreasonable to ask that people at least *try* to formulate an argument that demonstrates that the two existing ways we have are inferior to the proposal. Stating that you're not even willing to try is hardly productive. Paul _______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list Python-ideas@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
