On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 07:35:45AM +0300, Ivan Pozdeev via Python-ideas wrote:
> Actually, the way I'm using them, > > assert condition, "error message", type > > would probably be the most expressive way. I disagree that is expressive -- I call it *misleading*. I see something which looks like an assertion (that is, a checked comment, a contract, a check on an internal piece of logic etc) but it is actually being used as a test. > I can do anything in any Turing-complete language without any changes to > the language. That's no reason to never change anything, is it. "We can change this" is not a reason to change this. There needs to be a *good* reason to change, and you have given no good reasons for this change. > The rationale basically is: > * As it was intended, the statement has no practical use -- basically a > rudiment, due to disappear eventually Nonsense. I make extensive use of assert as a way of checking assertions, and I will fight tooth and nail against any proposal to either remove it or to misuse it for public input tests instead of assertions. > * It can instead be reused as syntax sugar to cover a very common use case There is no need for such syntactic sugar. It would be harmful to use assert for something which is not an assertion. -- Steve _______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list Python-ideas@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
