On Sat, Apr 28, 2018 at 7:11 AM, Tim Peters <[email protected]> wrote: > [Chris Angelico <[email protected]>] >> ... >> I don't understand why people bring up all these arguments that have >> absolutely nothing to do with the proposal at hand. None of this has >> in any way changed. > > That's easy: any time there's a long thread to which Guido has > contributed at least twice, it will be seen as a Golden Opportunity to > re-litigate every decision that's ever been made ;-)
Well, now, that explains a lot! :-) > Some amount of that seems healthy to me (people are thinking about > "language design" from a larger view than the proposal du jour). In > this specific case, line-oriented coverage tools have missed > accounting for all possible code paths since day #1; e.g., > > x = f() or g() > > You don't need to reply to messages so obviously irrelevant to the PEP > unless you want to. It's not like Guido will read them and go "oh! a > binding expression in a ternary conditional is a fundamentally new > potential problem for a line-oriented coverage tool! that's fatal" > ;-) True, but sometimes it takes two or three emails before I actually understand the objection enough to know that it's actually irrelevant :| I'm going to start ignoring any message that I don't understand, in the hopes that it doesn't actually mean anything. :| ChrisA _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com