Message 344232 - Python tracker [proxy]

Message344232

Author	mark.dickinson
Recipients	FR4NKESTI3N, josh.r, jwilk, kellerfuchs, mark.dickinson, pablogsal, rhettinger, serhiy.storchaka, steven.daprano, tim.peters
Date	2019-06-01.21:02:47
SpamBayes Score	-1.0
Marked as misclassified	Yes
Message-id	<1559422967.55.0.941580406754.issue35431@roundup.psfhosted.org>
In-reply-to

Content
> What are your thoughts? Sigh. I don't object to extending to `k < 0` and `k > n`, but once we've made that extension it's impossible to undo if we decide we'd rather have had the error checking. I'd really like to see some convincing use-cases. Quotes from Concrete Mathematics (fine book though it is) don't amount to use-cases. I'd say leave it as-is for 3.8, see what the reaction is, and maybe relax constraints in 3.9 if that seems appropriate. But if a majority of others really want to make the change now, that's okay with me.

Content

> What are your thoughts?

Sigh. I don't object to extending to `k < 0` and `k > n`, but once we've made that extension it's impossible to undo if we decide we'd rather have had the error checking. I'd really like to see some convincing use-cases. Quotes from Concrete Mathematics (fine book though it is) don't amount to use-cases.

I'd say leave it as-is for 3.8, see what the reaction is, and maybe relax constraints in 3.9 if that seems appropriate. But if a majority of others really want to make the change now, that's okay with me.

History
Date	User	Action	Args
2019-06-01 21:02:47	mark.dickinson	set	recipients: + mark.dickinson, tim.peters, rhettinger, jwilk, steven.daprano, serhiy.storchaka, josh.r, pablogsal, kellerfuchs, FR4NKESTI3N
2019-06-01 21:02:47	mark.dickinson	set	messageid: <1559422967.55.0.941580406754.issue35431@roundup.psfhosted.org>
2019-06-01 21:02:47	mark.dickinson	link	issue35431 messages
2019-06-01 21:02:47	mark.dickinson	create