Le 02/12/2022 à 18:49, Brett Cannon a écrit :
>
> Since we are promoting/pushing folks to use discuss.python.org
Until now I've seen more "pushing" (with sticks) than "promoting" (with
carrots).
Since august I've been looking for a way to follow the discussions on
discourse without using the
On 29/11/2022 00:51, Guido van Rossum wrote:
To stir up some more fire, I would personally be fine with sets having
the same ordering guarantees as dicts, *IF* it can be done without
performance degradations. So far nobody has come up with a way to ensure
that. "Sets weren't meant to be
On Sat, 3 Dec 2022 at 14:46, Yoni Lavi wrote:
> > I think this is over-complicating things. I think the key merit of your
> > original proposal was its simplicity. Proposing more complicated ways of
> > getting the result you want is (IMO) unlikely to succeed, and is only
> > likely to cause
> I think this is over-complicating things. I think the key merit of your
> original proposal was its simplicity. Proposing more complicated ways of
> getting the result you want is (IMO) unlikely to succeed, and is only
> likely to cause people to become even more entrenched in their positions.
>
On Sat, 3 Dec 2022 at 10:57, Yoni Lavi wrote:
> There's a number of Core devs that have taken strong positions against
> this change, citing various reasons ranging from "the addition of a
> function that returns a constant will cause bloat in the interpreter /
> needs to be tested / etc" to
There's a number of Core devs that have taken strong positions against this
change, citing various reasons ranging from "the addition of a function that
returns a constant will cause bloat in the interpreter / needs to be tested /
etc" to "what you really mean to ask for is set iteration
