"François Pinard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>To summarize, instead of saying "Python has only one way to do it", As I explained in response to Aahz, what Tim Peters wrote was that Python 'should preferably have only one obvious way to do it'. Omission of the crucial qualifiers 'should preferably' and 'obvious' misleads any discussion. >rather say "Python will eventually have only one way to do it", > and with such a wording, nobody will not be mislead. The actual design principle, as opposed to the impossible oversimplification, does not, in my opinion, mislead. It is applied to every new proposal, most of which get rejected. What I can't tell is whether you wish Python had added less new stuff or had already dumped more old stuff. For myself, I wish the next version would be 3.0 and slimmed down a bit. Terry J. Reedy -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
