(original) (raw)
On 9/8/2014 8:41 PM, Stephen J.
Turnbull wrote:
> Why not provide \_urlopen\_with\_scary\_keyword\_parameter as the \> monkey-patch option? \> \> So after the (global to the module) monkeypatch, they would \_still\_ have \> to add the keyword parameter.I understand the hardline position, though I don't like it: "if you
don't know how to do it yourself, we won't help you do it at all."[1]But this "defense in depth" suggestion really violates the "consenting
adults" principle. One warning in the docs and another in the name
itself should be enough, and if it isn't, Mommy should take Jimmy's
RaspberryPi away.
I was assuming, because of the suggestion for a monkey patch at all,
in response to Guido's suggestion of a keyword parameter, that there
was a problem adding a keyword parameter to urlopen. If there is,
then the combo above could be useful in making them track down and
adjust the places that need it, without forcing them to adjust the
places that don't need it? If there is not, then no need for the
monkey patch at all, they can just change add the keyword parameter.
If the alternate function doesn't have an extra keyword parameter,
the monkeypatch solution would be the "easy" way to apply the change
globally, even to places that don't need it, or optionally don't
need it... too big a hammer. Having the extra parameter also might
make them not apply it globally, and think more about what and why
they are doing what they are doing.
Whatever, the idea is out there. If no one likes it, let it die.