Terry Reedy 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?
No.
I say this based on the philosophical principle that obligations are
reciprocal.
In any case, cmp= is still present and has not been removed from any
version in which it ever appeared. It was not retained in 3.0 because
Guido thought that omitting it would move 3.0 closer to ideal Python.
Python 3 was *always* intended to be something of a break from 2.x.
Very interesting. Your explanations (and other excellent contributions
here) have shown an intense variation of diversity of viewpoint within
at least the comp.lang. community with regard to the Python language.
Always learning is lifelong...
Except for the long tradition for an eternal object reference to SPAM
SPAM SPAM and Monte Python's Flying Circus, perhaps this new pythonesque
language might be called Anaconda? ... going with the python serpent
image on the covers of some python books. It does seem that there is a
sort-of-drive, as it were, towards some ideal concept that is maintained
in an orderly state of flux while being practically useful and without
too much disruption... for which I laud the entire team.
Well, winding down the debate side of this thing from my standpoint, if
Guido does not restore the interface along the lines of my
*philosophical* ideal, then I cannot see why he would consider restoring
it at all. Clearly, his own arguments for removing the cmp= are solid,
well thought out, and make sense from the standpoint technically for
moving towards Anaconda. The new Python will be lean, clean, and more
pythonesque than ever before. All is good.
Thanks for the great discussion. For those of you still clam-mering for
inclusion of the cmp= keyword, you have my most sincere wishes,
encouragement, and remorse. :)
kind regards,
m harris
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
