YAGNI? True, Chris, I never have. And if I ever did, I might not even know someone has implemented similar functionality with 86 optional function arguments that fine-tune what happens in various cases and what error messages to supply, LOL! So, I would end up re-implementing it myself.
But isn't this true for so much software we discuss here. The usual mantra is that 80% of features are used maybe 20% of the time and a few are used never except maybe while testing. Realistically, it adds to bloat if a fairly well-defined object is extended to handle every possible feature that is allowed, and then some. We recently discussed the "+=" feature for an object when much of the time, it is pretty much as useful as just using the longer way of adding something to yourself. But loading a longer object description the 99% of the time when it is not used, also costs a bit. My comment was thus mostly academic and suggested realistic scenarios some people use commonly enough that might be possibly to implement to make it easier to deal with such a structure and that arguably such could also handle this edge case. No reason to think this is an important thing to add, just a category that could be doable. -----Original Message----- From: Python-list <python-list-bounces+avigross=verizon....@python.org> On Behalf Of Chris Angelico Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2021 1:14 AM To: Python <python-list@python.org> Subject: Re: name for a mutually inclusive relationship On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 4:06 PM Avi Gross via Python-list <python-list@python.org> wrote: > > Is there a more general idea here? How about asking for a control that > internally manages N items and requires exactly M of them before the > entry is accepted when you click? The case being discussed sort of > wants N out of N, or nothing. > YAGNI. ChrisA -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
