[Python-Dev] Policy on refactoring/clean up
Jeroen Demeyer
J.Demeyer at UGent.be
Tue Jun 26 07:43:32 EDT 2018
More information about the Python-Dev mailing list
Tue Jun 26 07:43:32 EDT 2018
- Previous message (by thread): [Python-Dev] Policy on refactoring/clean up
- Next message (by thread): [Python-Dev] Policy on refactoring/clean up
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
On 2018-06-26 13:11, Ivan Pozdeev via Python-Dev wrote: > AFAICS, your PR is not a strict improvement What does "strict improvement" even mean? Many changes are not strict improvements, but still useful to have. Inada pointed me to YAGNI (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_aren%27t_gonna_need_it) but I disagree with that premise: there is a large gray zone between "completely useless" and "really needed". My PR falls in that gap of "nice to have but we can do without it". > You may suggest it as a supplemental PR to PEP 580. Or even a part of > it, but since the changes are controversial, better make the > refactorings into separate commits so they can be rolled back separately > if needed. If those refactorings are rejected now, won't they be rejected as part of PEP 580 also?
- Previous message (by thread): [Python-Dev] Policy on refactoring/clean up
- Next message (by thread): [Python-Dev] Policy on refactoring/clean up
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the Python-Dev mailing list