On Tue, Dec 07, 2021 at 06:42:18PM +0000, Rob Cliffe via Python-ideas wrote:
[The other Stephen] > >That's a strawman. The argument is not "Your proposal is good, but > >not perfect, so we reject it." > > That IMO is exactly the argument. It's like saying "I won't buy a car > today because in 10/20/50 years time I can probably buy a driverless one". I think a better analogy for those who reject late-bound defaults but would accept a general deferred evaluation mechanism is: "I won't buy a driverless car today because I have a perfectly good car now, and **driving is not a sufficient burden** that I care for this feature alone. But fully autonomous robots that could drive my car, clean my house, do my chores, now *that's* something I would buy!" [the other Stephen] > > if _*you*_ do this other stuff we would likely support it." > > [My emphasis - RC.] > > You want *Chris* to implement deferred-evaluation objects? Clearly not. It's obvious in context that Stephen is talking about *generic* "you". He's not addressing his comment to Chris. Anyone could read the comment and interpret that "you" as themselves, and respond "What a great idea! I'm going to implement deferred evaluation!". You surely don't imagine that Stephen thinks, or implies, that those who want a generic deferred evaluation feature would reject it if it wasn't done specifically by Chris himself. I know that the Python-Ideas community is changable like the wind and rather mercurial, but we've never yet demanded a feature we want be implemented by a *particular person* or else we will reject it. -- Steve _______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list -- python-ideas@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-ideas-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-ideas.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-ideas@python.org/message/RZPRZSGEPDS2WKSKYGFE4U2UDUIDAPQ4/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
