On Dec 23, 6:53 pm, Robert Kern <robert.k...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 12/23/11 1:23 PM, rusi wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Dec 23, 6:10 pm, Robert Kern<robert.k...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 12/23/11 10:22 AM, rusi wrote: > >>> On Dec 23, 2:39 pm, Steven D'Aprano<steve > >>> +comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info> wrote: > >>>> Some people might argue that it is a mistake, a minor feature which > >>>> allegedly causes more difficulties than benefits. I do not hold with that > >>>> idea. But either way, it is not a bug to be fixed, but a deliberate > >>>> consequence of intended semantics. > > >>> I did not ask or imply that it should be 'fixed', just that language > >>> misfeatures should be treated with extra care. > > >> "Bug" means, roughly, "something that should be fixed" not just any "thing > >> that > >> has some unwanted consequences". So yes, by calling it a bug you are > >> asking and > >> implying just that. If you don't mean that, don't use the word "bug". > > > Of course it should be fixed. The repeated recurrence of it as a > > standard gotcha as well as the python ideas list testifies to that. > > So you were lying when you said that you did not ask or imply that it should > be > 'fixed'? Please make up your mind. It's quite rude to "defend" your position > by > constantly shifting it whenever you get challenged on it.
Meanings of "should" http://www.englishpage.com/modals/should.html My first should was the 3rd one My second was the 1st one. [And we really should stop this argument (2nd one)] -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
