Hi Steven!
On 21.09.22 13:17, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
The distinction you make between user-defined and non-user-defined
classes doesn't hold water. If you allow that (say) `int|None` **might**
be acceptable, then why would `Integer|None` **necessarily** be lazy and
bad just because int is writte
On Sun, Sep 18, 2022 at 09:43:26PM +0200, Philipp Burch wrote:
> However, I then read the mentioned post of Steve Dower, with the final
> summary:
>
> > So to summarise my core concern - allowing an API designer to "just
> use None" is a cop out, and it lets people write lazy/bad APIs rather
>
On 21. 09. 22 10:17, Baptiste Carvello wrote:
Hello,
good to see that someone in the Steering Council still reads here, as
some of the actions necessary to make either mailing-list mode or RSS a
viable alternative [1] need an official "hat":
* mailing-list mode: there needs to be a *standardize
Hello,
good to see that someone in the Steering Council still reads here, as
some of the actions necessary to make either mailing-list mode or RSS a
viable alternative [1] need an official "hat":
* mailing-list mode: there needs to be a *standardized* set of filters
to access Core-Dev + PEPs (and
