Author ncoghlan
Recipients jab, jrus, ncoghlan, r.david.murray
Date 2009-10-10.14:38:49
SpamBayes Score 3.6447e-08
Marked as misclassified No
Message-id <1255185532.97.0.204069134924.issue6626@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
In-reply-to
Content
Putting this here for the record rather than leaving it in Rietveld:

I appreciate the desire for a cleaner API for handling mimetypes, but
this isn't the way to get it. Finding projects that have their own
mimetypes implementations, asking them why they created their own rather
than using the standard one, seeing what features are common to those
APIs, etc, are all things that need to be done before making major
changes to the standard library API.

What you see as a critical bug (custom MimeTypes instances inheriting
their initial settings from the mimetypes._db instance), you can bet
some developers are relying on as a feature. If code is in the standard
library, someone, somewhere, is relying on it working just the way it is
now. Even bug fixes can sometimes break code that was designed to work
around the presence of the bug.

The concept of having a master copy that new instances are cloned from
isn't even particularly objectionable, so long as people clearly
understand that is what is going on (e.g. this happens with
decimal.DefaultContext being used as the basis for new decimal.Context
instances).

With code this old, 'softly, softly' is the way to go, and the fewer
user visible changes in semantics the better.
History
Date User Action Args
2009-10-10 14:38:53ncoghlansetrecipients: + ncoghlan, r.david.murray, jab, jrus
2009-10-10 14:38:52ncoghlansetmessageid: <1255185532.97.0.204069134924.issue6626@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
2009-10-10 14:38:51ncoghlanlinkissue6626 messages
2009-10-10 14:38:49ncoghlancreate