[Python-Dev] an alternative to embedding policy in PEP 418 (was: PEP 418: Add monotonic clock) (original) (raw)

Ethan Furman ethan at stoneleaf.us
Thu Apr 5 20:56:00 CEST 2012

Oleg Broytman wrote:

On Wed, Apr 04, 2012 at 12:52:00PM -0700, Ethan Furman wrote:

Forced? I do not use Python to be forced to use one style of programming over another. Then it's strange you are using Python with its strict syntax (case-sensitivity, forced indents), ubiquitous exceptions, limited syntax of lambdas and absence of code blocks (read - forced functions), etc.

I come from assembly -- 'a' and 'A' are not the same.

indents -- I already used them; finding a language that gave them the same importance I did was incredible.

exceptions -- Python uses them, true, but I don't have to in my own code (I do, but that's besides the point).

lambdas -- they work just fine for my needs.

etc.

And it's not like returning None will allow some clock calls to work but not others -- as soon as they try to use it, it will raise an exception. There is a philosophical distinction between EAFP and LBYL. I am mostly proponent of LBYL. Well, I am partially retreat. "Errors should never pass silently. Unless explicitly silenced." getclock(FLAG, onerror=None) could return None.

It's only an error if it's documented that way and, more importantly, thought of that way. The re module is a good example: if it can't find what you're looking for it returns None -- it does not raise a NotFound exception.

I see get_clock() the same way: I need a clock that does xyz... None? Okay, there isn't one.

Ethan

More information about the Python-Dev mailing list