> (And it's really not a good idea to be proud of your > ignorance...)
I wasn't bragging. > But you're happy to accept the opinions of random posters saying "exec > is evil"? [...] > As opposed to your in-depth critique? [...] > No, instead you have a thread full of people happy to criticise > something for which they're providing no alternative implementation. > You can't exactly say _why_ it's bad, other than other people have > echoed it, but you won't actually do anything about it. I said it was bad because I found it difficult to read and it was "weird". I also mentioned that it's conceivable that it has security flaws, but that's not as big a deal. I believe I also said that it was bad because it resulted in """arbitrary""" limitations in functionality. So, yes, I did say why it's bad, and it's not just because other people say so. My reasons are weak, but that's a different story. I also mentioned the alternative implementation, which uses a dict. There was even already a patch submitted to make namedtuple work this way, so I don't think I had to be too specific. R. Hettinger rejected this patch, which was what I was referring to when I was referring to handwaviness. So, no. > Just as I thought. Woo condescension. Devin On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 10:50 PM, alex23 <wuwe...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Nov 10, 11:26 am, Devin Jeanpierre <jeanpierr...@gmail.com> wrote: >> I don't really know anything about him or why people respect him, so I >> have no reason to share your faith. > > But you're happy to accept the opinions of random posters saying "exec > is evil"? (And it's really not a good idea to be proud of your > ignorance...) > >> Like, why can't "--" be a name? > > Why would you ever want it to be? > >> I don't like the use of exec, and I don't like the justification (it >> seems handwavy). > > As opposed to your in-depth critique? > >> I pointed this out in a thread full of people saying >> "never EVER use exec this way", so it's obviously not just me that >> thinks this is awful. > > No, instead you have a thread full of people happy to criticise > something for which they're providing no alternative implementation. > You can't exactly say _why_ it's bad, other than other people have > echoed it, but you won't actually do anything about it. > >> I think somebody will read it and think this is a good idea. > > Just as I thought. > -- > http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list > -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
