Message122344
| Author |
arigo |
| Recipients |
alex, arigo, belopolsky, benjamin.peterson, brett.cannon, dmalcolm, jhylton, nnorwitz, orsenthil, pitrou, rhettinger, sdahlbac, thomaslee, titanstar |
| Date |
2010年11月25日.08:53:51 |
| SpamBayes Score |
2.2840317e-05 |
| Marked as misclassified |
No |
| Message-id |
<1290675234.31.0.613131292494.issue10399@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| In-reply-to |
| Content |
> But this seems to me like a contrived example: how often in real
> code do people pass around these builtins, rather than calling
> them directly?
From experience developing PyPy, every argument that goes "this theoretically breaks obscure code, but who writes it in that way?" is inherently broken: there *is* code out there that uses any and all Python strangenesses. The only trade-offs you can make is in how much existing code you are going to break -- or make absolutely sure that you don't change semantics in any case. |
|
History
|
|---|
| Date |
User |
Action |
Args |
| 2010年11月25日 08:53:54 | arigo | set | recipients:
+ arigo, jhylton, nnorwitz, brett.cannon, rhettinger, belopolsky, sdahlbac, orsenthil, titanstar, pitrou, thomaslee, benjamin.peterson, alex, dmalcolm |
| 2010年11月25日 08:53:54 | arigo | set | messageid: <1290675234.31.0.613131292494.issue10399@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| 2010年11月25日 08:53:51 | arigo | link | issue10399 messages |
| 2010年11月25日 08:53:51 | arigo | create |
|