Antoon Pardon wrote: > Well that looks somewhat short sighted to me. It is also why python > seems to throws so many surprises at people. > > My impression is that quite frequently people come here with a question > about why something doesn't work, that normally could be expected to > work.
> The reason why it doesn't work then seems to boil down to the > developpers not taking the trouble of implementing something > in general but only for the cases for which they could imagine > a use case. Which means that when someone comes up with a use > case later he is stuck. I think you're overgeneralizing here. Do you have other examples of such a strategy resulting in something that doesn't work although it should? Nota bene: Often developers run into a limitation that is the result of a deliberate design choice, such as "why aren't strings mutable?" > I know about practicality beating purity, but purity has it > practical aspects too. If the python people had been willing > to work a bit more at purity, that would have been a lot > of more practical for those who found something not working > as expected, although they had no reason to suspect so. I've told you already: if a developer wants a feature not currently implemented, he/she can - ask on python-dev why - submit a feature request - submit a patch If he/she's not able to do one of these, he/she can at least convince some other Python developer if the use case is strong enough. Georg -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
