On 2006-11-15, Steven D'Aprano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 08:22:46 +0000, Antoon Pardon wrote: > >>> Redundancy is not something to be valued for its own sake. It is only >>> valuable when it actually gains you something. >> >> In the same way it is not something to be eliminated for its own >> sake. > > On the contrary, redundancy implies more work somewhere: e.g. more work > for the parser, more effort needed by the python-dev crew, bigger > binaries, larger code bases, more complex test suites, slower development, > longer downloads. Whatever the nature of the redundant thing, there will > be a cost to it. If that cost isn't outweighed by some advantage it should > be eliminated merely because it is redundant and therefore a cost we could > do without.
It you want to put it in those terms fine. It doesn't change the fact that when someone doesn't like some proposal that happens to introduce redundancy here in c.l.p, there is a reasonable chance that the proposal will be dismissed with the simple observation that it introduces redundancy without further reference to possible costs or benefits of the specific redundancy. IME there is a lot of redundancy that has benefits. So there is no reason to dismiss a proposal simply on the grounds that it introduces some redundancy. Something that seems to happen a lot here. -- Antoon Pardon -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
