"Stephen J. Turnbull" <[email protected]> writes: > [...] The "meta" of "special cases aren't special enough to break the > rules" is that no design decision that violates it should be dismissed > as "minor".
Thank you. That dismissal was very upsetting; essentially telling Python users that their concerns for a clean API in the standard library aren't worth much to the Python core developers. > In context of a mailing list, doing so is going to be taken by readers > as "I know what I'm doing, and you don't know what you're talking > about, so STFU." That may not have been the intent. It certainly was how it was received by some of us here. > *Both* roles in this comedy of errors are natural, they are inherent > in human cognition (citations on request), and nobody is to be blamed. Since it can't seem to be said enough, I agree with what Stephen's saying here wholeheartedly: the above explications are not intended as blame, but an explanation of why calls to "stop talking about this, it's minor" had precisely the opposite effect. -- \ "Remember: every member of your ‘target audience’ also owns a | `\ broadcasting station. These ‘targets’ can shoot back." —Michael | _o__) Rathbun to advertisers, news.admin.net-abuse.email | Ben Finney _______________________________________________ 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