On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 6:54 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> On 11 October 2017 at 21:58, Koos Zevenhoven wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 7:46 AM, Steve Dower
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Nick: “I like Yury's example for this, which is that the following two
>>> examples are currently semantically equivalent
On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 8:59 AM, Koos Zevenhoven wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 6:54 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
[..]
>> 1. Preserve the current behaviour, since we don't have a compelling reason
>> to change its semantics
>> 2. Change the behaviour, in order to gain
>>
>
> 3. Introduce a new cont
On Oct 12, 2017 9:03 PM, "Yury Selivanov" wrote:
On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 8:59 AM, Koos Zevenhoven wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 6:54 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
[..]
>> 1. Preserve the current behaviour, since we don't have a compelling
reason
>> to change its semantics
>> 2. Change the behaviou
> Although it is true that I plan to propose to use PEP 550 to
> reimplement decimal APIs on top of it, and so far I haven't seen any
> real-world examples of code that will be broken because of that. As
> far as I know—and I've done some research—nobody uses decimal contexts
>
> and generators be
Yury Selivanov wrote:
[generators and decimal]
> Specifically for decimal: I tried to find bug reports on
> bugs.python.org (found not even one), questions on stackoverflow (IIRC
> I didn't find anything), and used github code search and google
> (again, nothing directly relevant).
I also don't
I'm out of energy to debate every point (Steve said it well -- that
decimal/generator example is too contrived), but I found one nit in Nick's
email that I wish to correct.
On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 1:28 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>
> As a less-contrived example, consider context managers implemented
