Steve Holden wrote: >> You'd best hope the copied section was thoroughly reviewed otherwise >> you're >> duplicating a flaw across X other sections. And then you also best hope >> that >> whoever finds said flaw and fixes it is also smart enough to check for >> similar constructs around the code base. >> > This is probably preferable to five different developers solving the > same problem five different ways and introducing three *different* bugs, > no?
someone posted some numbers that suggested that more code than normal was copied in python 3.0. that seems reasonable, as others have said, because it's a new major release. but as far as i know, this is the first time it's been raised. so it seems like a useful piece of information that might help improve python in some way. which should be welcomed. yet the general tone of the responses has been more defensive than i would have expected. i don't really understand why. nothing really terrible, given the extremes you get on the net in general, but still a little disappointing. the email quoted above is a typical example. as i said - nothing terrible, just a misleading false dichotomy. yes, five people solving it five different ways would be worse, but that doesn't mean there isn't some better solution. surely it would be preferable if there was one way, that didn't involve copying code, that everyone could use? i'm not saying there is such a solution. i'm not even saying that there is certainly a problem. i'm just making the quiet observation that the original information is interesting, might be useful, and should be welcomed. andrew -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
