On 31/03/2016 14:27, Random832 wrote:
On Thu, Mar 31, 2016, at 09:17, Mark Lawrence via Python-list wrote:
On 31/03/2016 14:08, Antoon Pardon wrote:
Op 31-03-16 om 13:57 schreef Chris Angelico:
Okay. I'll put a slightly different position: Prove that your proposal
is worth discussing by actually giving us an example that we can
discuss. So far, this thread has had nothing but toy examples (and
bogoexamples that prove nothing beyond that the author knows how to
mess with Python - fun, but not a strong argument on either side).
Give us some real meat to work with, instead of these drips of
tantalizing blood.
What a strange request. Whether or not something is worth discussing
is a personal judgement. So there can be no proof of such a thing.
I would say: judge for yourself and act accordingly.
Drivel. This is comp.lang.python, where "Practicality beats purity"
every time, not comp.theoretical.claptrap.
So can we discuss how a unified method to get a set of all valid
subscripts (and/or subscript-value pairs) on an object would be a useful
thing to have without getting bogged down in theoretical claptrap about
the meaning of the mapping contract?
We can discuss anything here until the cows come home, but it's a
complete waste of time if the powers that be over on python-ideas and/or
python-dev don't agree. This was suggested a day or two back but seems
to have gone completely over people's heads.
--
My fellow Pythonistas, ask not what our language can do for you, ask
what you can do for our language.
Mark Lawrence
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
