Message230911
| Author |
terry.reedy |
| Recipients |
ezio.melotti, rhettinger, serhiy.storchaka, terry.reedy |
| Date |
2014年11月09日.20:46:27 |
| SpamBayes Score |
-1.0 |
| Marked as misclassified |
Yes |
| Message-id |
<1415565987.48.0.141666617348.issue22823@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| In-reply-to |
| Content |
Serhiy, about your 'huge patch' to modernize code:
I am more positive than some because:
1) To me, a one-time gentile change is not 'churning'.
2) As we link to many, most, or even all python-coded stdlib modules (I think there is a proposal for 'all'), there is more benefit to using modern idioms.
On the other hand, 'huge' patches can be too much to discuss, justify, and review all at once.
Using {.. } for sets consistently is a nice-sized chunk to consider. We can identify, discuss, and decide on each sub-case (I have identified 4 so far). It has the additional benefit of being a performance enhancement.
---
'set((...' is used in distutils (which I will not change) and in many tests. So that is not an issue. 'frozenset((' is used 5 times in regular module code. |
|