[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
>> a decent description or tutorial... is better > > Sound good but... we're programmers, not documentation > specialist or motivational speakers. Why, when I suggest fixing > a design defect with code, do so many programmers want to > respond with... documentation and arguments instead of code? > >>From "The Design of Everyday Things", docs are a sign of poor >>design. > Even a single word, such as the word "Push" on the face of a > door, is an indication that the design can be improved. Please, > rethink the design instead of trying to compensate with more > documentation. > So, for instance, even a single character (like an opening or closing bracket or a semicolon) is an indication that the design can be improved. Please, rethink your opposition instead of trying to impose your design defect on a better, cleaner design. Seriously. What you call a design defect and what other call a design feature are one and the same. I will concede this much: I would like a guarantee that helpful software would not strip leading whitespace (as has happened with some mail clients), which trashes logic-by-indention. Alternatively, it might be useful to have brackets and semicolons to overcome sadistic software interactions, but I don't *really* expect Python to be willing and able to predict and prevent all the crazy things other programs might do. And I certainly hope that Python doesn't ever *require* the brackets and semicolons that add so little value and so much clutter. -- rzed -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
