Message64764
| Author | rhettinger |
|---|---|
| Recipients | ajaksu2, amaury.forgeotdarc, belopolsky, nedbat, rhettinger |
| Date | 2008-03-30.21:01:12 |
| SpamBayes Score | 0.010228613 |
| Marked as misclassified | No |
| Message-id | <1206910874.68.0.914393785045.issue2506@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| In-reply-to |
| Content | |
|---|---|
Weigh the cost/benefit carefully before pushing further. I don't doubt the legitimacy of the use case, but do think it affects far fewer than one percent of Python programmers. In contrast, introducing new command line options is a big deal and will cause its own issues (possibly needing its own buildbot runs to exercise the non-optimized version, having optimized code possibly have subtle differences from the code being traced/debugged/profiled, and more importantly the mental overhead of having to learn what it is, why it's there, and when to use it). My feeling is that adding a new compiler option using a cannon to kill a mosquito. If you decide to press the case for this one, it should go to python-dev since command line options affect everyone. This little buglet has been around since Py2.3. That we're only hearing about it now is a pretty good indicator that this is a very minor in the Python world and doesn't warrant a heavy-weight solution. It would be *much* more useful to direct effort improving the mis- reporting of the number of arguments given versus those required for instance methods: >>> a.f(1, 2) TypeError: f() takes exactly 1 argument (3 given) |
|
| History | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Date | User | Action | Args |
| 2008-03-30 21:01:15 | rhettinger | set | spambayes_score: 0.0102286 -> 0.010228613 recipients: + rhettinger, amaury.forgeotdarc, belopolsky, ajaksu2, nedbat |
| 2008-03-30 21:01:14 | rhettinger | set | spambayes_score: 0.0102286 -> 0.0102286 messageid: <1206910874.68.0.914393785045.issue2506@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| 2008-03-30 21:01:13 | rhettinger | link | issue2506 messages |
| 2008-03-30 21:01:12 | rhettinger | create | |