Mike Meyer wrote: > Whatever it is, trying to turn Python into a tool for dealing with it > isn't the right thing to do. Still this tone, and logic. This statement alone is right except that it may not be what was about.
> > >> > I think that it is possible to include in Python, things that are > >> > non-Pythonic (such as a return value from sort()) that allow users > >> > more stylistic freedom, without degrading the ability of those who > >> > don't want to use such features, to write in a pure Pythonic manner. > >> So you think we can turn a hammer into a screwdriver without degrading > >> the ability to use the hammer to drive nails. The problem is, doing > >> this means you have a bigger, heavier hammer - which almost certainly > >> degrades the ability to use it as a hammer. > > And it follows through, first said it is a screw and since you > > disagree, you are trying to do screwing with a hammer. > > You're the one that wants to use the hammer to do whatever it is, not > me. I don't believe in silver bullets. Python is good at what it > does. If I need a different tool, I use a different tool, rather than > try and mangle a good tool into something it's not. Such attempts are > pretty much doomed. They nearly inevitably producej a tool that's not > as good at what the original did as the original, and not as good at > whatever new task it's being mangledd to do as a tool that was > designed for that in the first place. And again. > By the results of the vote, most people wanted ternary. The use > cases for it are well know. From what I recall, the debate was over > which of the many proposals should be adopted. That is not the impression I get on here. The impression I get lately is "ternary" is bad, is hard to read, can always be done "better" with if then else statement. > The usual response is "That's not the Python way." That's not calling > someone dumb, just pointing out that they don't yet fully understand > the Python way. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
