I suspect that this debate is a sink hole that I won't be able to
escape from alive but...
On 2 Apr 2011, at 19:29, harrismh777 wrote:
In other words, does the PSF have a responsibility to maintain the
L.sort(cmp= key= reverse=) interface for strictly *philosophical*
principle based on established norms for *any* OOP language? (and)
is there OOA&D expectation for this principle?
No, there should be no expectation that Python 2.x interfaces be
preserved in Python 3.x unless they have demonstrated utility.
Furthermore, there should be no expectation that a particular
interface survive for more than a few major Python versions. PEP-004
describes how deprecations are expected to proceed at module
granularity.
The rest of the thread is arguing for a *technical* determination
for inclusion of the cmp= keyword... I am arguing (on the other
hand) for a *philosophical* determination for inclusion of the cmp=
keyword.
Any argument along what you call "philosophical" grounds will not be
successful. Technical (including aesthetic, convenience, etc.)
arguments *may* be successful.
Cheers,
Brian
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
