On Sat, Apr 2, 2016, at 02:40 PM, Marko Rauhamaa wrote: > That's why I was looking for counterexamples in the standard library
This entire bent of an argument seems flawed to me. The standard library has never been a beacon for best practices or idiomatic uses of Python. That a use exists in the standard library, or that one does not, doesn't really tell you anything meaningful about Python itself or good practices with the language. The standard library is under uniquely conservative constraints that enshrine compatibility and reliability from one point release to another over any kind of innovation. That code exists in the standard library is, itself, an incredibly strong reason why it should stay as IS: changes for style, idiom, best practices, modern techniques, those are all valid but *weak* arguments to change the standard library. The stdlib works and its continuing to work tomorrow is its most important burden. Just look at how much of the stdlib is not PEP8 compliant. Changing it to be PEP8 compliant is seen as a worse thing to do then the possibility of introducing bugs by doing such a sweeping change in the interest of good practices and style. The stdlib exists as a bastion of stability above all else. Its standards aren't a reason to make a change (or, not to make a change, either). That doesn't mean its not useful to look at the standard library, but you should not enshrine it as the example of good or idiomatic code to measure decisions against. Most code exists outside the stdlib. --- Stephen Hansen m e @ i x o k a i . i o -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
