On 9 September 2014 11:56, Gary Oberbrunner <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 4:03 AM, Jean-Baptiste Lab < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> Or wouldn't it be enough to simply mandate that exists() return something >> that can be tested against True/False? >> If that's the case, wouldn't a bit of wrapping around and implementing >> the __eq__/__neq__ descriptors (possibly __cmp__) be good enough so that we >> can get to the error description when needed (if False) without breaking >> existing usages? >> > > I did think about that. It's hard for me to imagine something that can > test as false while still having a string value. Not impossible, but > pretty weird and a bit un-pythonic. I prefer simplicity over cleverness. > Still, if you have an idea, let me know. > It might be a bit weird, granted, but I think it might be beneficial to sacrifice simplicity in that particular case so that the revamping of tools detection does not require a backward compatibility break of a possibly quite large public use-case. I'm currently at work and cannot focus on that much more, I'll try to think about it a bit more later on. Cheers, JB > > -- > Gary > > _______________________________________________ > Scons-dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-dev > >
_______________________________________________ Scons-dev mailing list [email protected] https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-dev
