[Python-Dev] Policy on refactoring/clean up (original) (raw)

INADA Naoki songofacandy at gmail.com
Tue Jun 26 07:54:49 EDT 2018

On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 8:46 PM Jeroen Demeyer <J.Demeyer at ugent.be> wrote:

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

​No, YAGNI is posted by someone and they removed their comment.

My point was:

Moving code around makes:

- hard to track history.

- hard to backport patches to old branches. https://github.com/python/cpython/pull/7909#issuecomment-400219905

And I prefer keeping definitions relating to​ methods in methodobject.h to move them to call.h only because they're used/implemented in call.c

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Youaren%27tgonnaneedit) 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".

​So I didn't think even it is "nice to have".​

> 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?

Real need is important than my preference. If it is needed PEP 580, I'm OK. But I didn't know which part of the PR is required by PEP 580.

Regards,

-- INADA Naoki <songofacandy at gmail.com> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20180626/13b62b45/attachment.html>

More information about the Python-Dev mailing list