all() is slow?

[Devin Jeanpierre]

> (And it's really not a good idea to be proud of your
> ignorance...)

I wasn't bragging.

> But you're happy to accept the opinions of random posters saying "exec
> is evil"?
[...]
> As opposed to your in-depth critique?
[...]
> No, instead you have a thread full of people happy to criticise
> something for which they're providing no alternative implementation.
> You can't exactly say _why_ it's bad, other than other people have
> echoed it, but you won't actually do anything about it.

I said it was bad because I found it difficult to read and it was
"weird". I also mentioned that it's conceivable that it has security
flaws, but that's not as big a deal. I believe I also said that it was
bad because it resulted in """arbitrary""" limitations in
functionality. So, yes, I did say why it's bad, and it's not just
because other people say so. My reasons are weak, but that's a
different story.

I also mentioned the alternative implementation, which uses a dict.
There was even already a patch submitted to make namedtuple work this
way, so I don't think I had to be too specific. R. Hettinger rejected
this patch, which was what I was referring to when I was referring to
handwaviness.

So, no.

> Just as I thought.

Woo condescension.

Devin

On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 10:50 PM, alex23 <wuwei23 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 10, 11:26 am, Devin Jeanpierre <jeanpierr... at gmail.com> wrote:
>> I don't really know anything about him or why people respect him, so I
>> have no reason to share your faith.
>
> But you're happy to accept the opinions of random posters saying "exec
> is evil"? (And it's really not a good idea to be proud of your
> ignorance...)
>
>> Like, why can't "--" be a name?
>
> Why would you ever want it to be?
>
>> I don't like the use of exec, and I don't like the justification (it
>> seems handwavy).
>
> As opposed to your in-depth critique?
>
>> I pointed this out in a thread full of people saying
>> "never EVER use exec this way", so it's obviously not just me that
>> thinks this is awful.
>
> No, instead you have a thread full of people happy to criticise
> something for which they're providing no alternative implementation.
> You can't exactly say _why_ it's bad, other than other people have
> echoed it, but you won't actually do anything about it.
>
>> I think somebody will read it and think this is a good idea.
>
> Just as I thought.
> --
> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
>