-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Dec 29, 2006, at 4:55 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> But my main objection to suggesting that these constants ought to be
> used is that open() is a built-in but you would have to import os to
> be able to call the seek method on the object it retur
On Friday 29 December 2006 16:55, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> If we want to make the seek API more 21st century, why not use keyword
> arguments?
I'd prefer that myself. I'm not advocating the constants as a way to go
forward, but was simply expressing a preference for the named constant over a
On 12/29/06, "Martin v. Löwis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Fred L. Drake, Jr. schrieb:
> > Speaking strictly for myself: I don't think I *have* to use them, but I do
> > prefer to use them because I don't like magic constants that affect what a
> > function does in code; I'd rather have a named c
Fred L. Drake, Jr. schrieb:
> Speaking strictly for myself: I don't think I *have* to use them, but I do
> prefer to use them because I don't like magic constants that affect what a
> function does in code; I'd rather have a named constant for readability's
> sake. Maybe I just can't keep enou
A.M. Kuchling schrieb:
> The constants were added in 2.5. I've gone ahead and made the
> documentation change to trunk and 25-maint, because why were the
> constants added if they weren't intended to be used?
See #711830. They were added for compatibility (with earlier Python
releases) primarily.
On Thu, Dec 21, 2006 at 02:14:55AM -0500, Fred L. Drake, Jr. wrote:
> I (only vaguely) recall Guido telling people that that's how it's documented,
> and that's what they should use. Don't know if he still feels that way; if
> he's recanted the obscure path, we can fix both the calls and the
> d
