Path: csiph.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!not-for-mail From: Stephen Hansen Newsgroups: comp.lang.python Subject: Re: Strange range Date: Sat, 02 Apr 2016 23:43:12 -0700 Lines: 34 Message-ID: References: <87y48xjwqq.fsf@elektro.pacujo.net> <56fe76f2$0$22141$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> <87lh4xjt37.fsf@elektro.pacujo.net> <1671ea2b-09ff-4745-a6e7-d2c57864cba3@googlegroups.com> <87zitbpwpr.fsf@elektro.pacujo.net> <87vb3zpu49.fsf@elektro.pacujo.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: news.uni-berlin.de izc2Sd6qXTEJfVnjSijSOQ3H6R2NuMgbTxZjytR93LYQ== Return-Path: X-Original-To: python-list@python.org Delivered-To: python-list@mail.python.org X-Spam-Status: OK 0.006 X-Spam-Evidence: '*H*': 0.99; '*S*': 0.00; 'meaningful': 0.09; 'received:internal': 0.09; 'worse': 0.09; 'python': 0.10; 'python.': 0.11; 'argument': 0.15; 'message- id:@webmail.messagingengine.com': 0.16; 'pep8': 0.16; 'received:10.202': 0.16; 'received:10.202.2': 0.16; 'received:66.111': 0.16; 'received:66.111.4': 0.16; 'received:66.111.4.27': 0.16; 'received:io': 0.16; 'received:messagingengine.com': 0.16; 'received:out3-smtp.messagingengine.com': 0.16; 'received:psf.io': 0.16; 'stdlib.': 0.16; 'uniquely': 0.16; 'wrote:': 0.16; 'exists': 0.18; 'library,': 0.18; 'library': 0.20; 'changes': 0.20; 'not,': 0.22; "aren't": 0.22; 'arguments': 0.22; 'stephen': 0.22; 'techniques,': 0.22; 'seems': 0.23; 'sat,': 0.23; 'header:In- Reply-To:1': 0.24; "doesn't": 0.26; 'example': 0.26; 'bugs': 0.27; 'possibility': 0.27; 'change,': 0.27; 'practices,': 0.27; '---': 0.28; 'innovation.': 0.29; 'itself,': 0.29; 'measure': 0.29; 'style.': 0.29; 'code': 0.30; 'standards': 0.30; 'another': 0.32; 'continuing': 0.32; 'language.': 0.32; 'point': 0.33; 'useful': 0.33; 'changing': 0.34; 'library.': 0.35; 'but': 0.36; 'should': 0.36; 'to:addr:python-list': 0.36; 'pm,': 0.36; 'subject:: ': 0.37; 'received:10': 0.37; 'really': 0.37; 'release': 0.37; 'doing': 0.38; 'itself': 0.38; 'received:66': 0.38; 'anything': 0.38; 'mean': 0.38; 'why': 0.39; 'does': 0.39; 'to:addr:python.org': 0.40; 'entire': 0.61; 'header:Message-Id:1': 0.61; 'interest': 0.64; 'compliant': 0.66; 'else.': 0.66; 'incredibly': 0.76; 'bastion': 0.84; 'compliant.': 0.84; 'conservative': 0.84; 'idiomatic': 0.84; 'reliability': 0.84; 'sweeping': 0.84 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ixokai.io; h= content-transfer-encoding:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-sasl-enc :x-sasl-enc; s=mesmtp; bh=TMIqzwN9KxAFT0Nv5VLLnyne93A=; b=qm6CDn C/fJJyy7craiqlVVwJEgLIA2Sr6jNwAOV06HMc6oZSXvifOtlCbWMsWh+nnu7n0t 3lI3f19Mzk68IhYFF0XtaY8j81M4u9acNEbIzSDZy4VALZr/DnmtLaXwZv+xA5av ofpvMHJZI0DFOUXShBorBdo9937dWlwJyMfgQ= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-sasl-enc:x-sasl-enc; s=smtpout; bh=TMIqzwN9KxAFT0N v5VLLnyne93A=; b=O45LjU3FjlhceeQa8p5xiccdT/65U4OLe++n7ULstOpYnX8 TUMEvvWMFbWEcJ+3mo/dnnm3Q41k9nETHIdQOhCUgEDnJvoImM3D76slVWjBBBq4 PV2e7zTju2iXzCKqhxltmyTbDVYe0Iksk1J/AdUra5y3Fm+eiF5QJ3Q2ViAg= X-Sasl-Enc: CnpTBS7DHjFGFquPmNvG89ltAwBnkxeKMMV5s8eaHUbB 1459665792 X-Mailer: MessagingEngine.com Webmail Interface - ajax-2373d6a1 In-Reply-To: <87vb3zpu49.fsf@elektro.pacujo.net> X-BeenThere: python-list@python.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 Precedence: list List-Id: General discussion list for the Python programming language List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.python:106351 On Sat, Apr 2, 2016, at 02:40 PM, Marko Rauhamaa wrote: > That's why I was looking for counterexamples in the standard library This entire bent of an argument seems flawed to me. The standard library has never been a beacon for best practices or idiomatic uses of Python. That a use exists in the standard library, or that one does not, doesn't really tell you anything meaningful about Python itself or good practices with the language. The standard library is under uniquely conservative constraints that enshrine compatibility and reliability from one point release to another over any kind of innovation. That code exists in the standard library is, itself, an incredibly strong reason why it should stay as IS: changes for style, idiom, best practices, modern techniques, those are all valid but *weak* arguments to change the standard library. The stdlib works and its continuing to work tomorrow is its most important burden. Just look at how much of the stdlib is not PEP8 compliant. Changing it to be PEP8 compliant is seen as a worse thing to do then the possibility of introducing bugs by doing such a sweeping change in the interest of good practices and style. The stdlib exists as a bastion of stability above all else. Its standards aren't a reason to make a change (or, not to make a change, either). That doesn't mean its not useful to look at the standard library, but you should not enshrine it as the example of good or idiomatic code to measure decisions against. Most code exists outside the stdlib. --- Stephen Hansen m e @ i x o k a i . i o