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.

Python-ideas mailing list
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/

Reply via email to