Author ncoghlan
Recipients adaptivelogic, eric.snow, gvanrossum, martius, ncoghlan, pitrou, rbcollins, rhettinger, vstinner, xonatius, yselivanov
Date 2015-02-08.22:42:43
SpamBayes Score -1.0
Marked as misclassified Yes
Message-id <CADiSq7dLShqS116hrus19eiHMssBiJobapXRVP=H5AWST8CWdg@mail.gmail.com>
In-reply-to <1423432895.22.0.9648165701.issue17911@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
Content
Escalating to python-dev for API design feedback is the usual path forward
if we reach an impasse in the tracker comments.

I'll make one more attempt at persuading Antoine here though: the fact that
we're being tempted to add "do not use this API the way you would normally
expect to use a Python API, even though it works exactly as you might
expect" to the docs is a big red flag for me :)

There's a split between the "low level API that exposes implementation
details" (the exception state triple) and "high level API that hides them"
in the current patch, and Antoine is entirely correct that we previously
omitted the latter. It doesn't follow for me that we should also hide the
fact that the higher level convenience API is implemented in terms of the
lower level more implementation oriented one.
History
Date User Action Args
2015-02-08 22:42:43ncoghlansetrecipients: + ncoghlan, gvanrossum, rhettinger, pitrou, vstinner, rbcollins, eric.snow, yselivanov, adaptivelogic, martius, xonatius
2015-02-08 22:42:43ncoghlanlinkissue17911 messages
2015-02-08 22:42:43ncoghlancreate